D&D General why do we not have an arcane half caster?

[Aldarc]

As a side note, I'm somewhat surprised that the Arcane Archer WASN'T tied to the Ranger.

It's likely that WotC wanted the Arcane Archer to actually be effective.

 

[jmartkdr2]

It's likely that WotC wanted the Arcane Archer to actually be effective.

The final version doesn't seem to support this hypothesis.

 

[steeldragons]

As a side note, I'm somewhat surprised that the Arcane Archer WASN'T tied to the Ranger.

Before 5e had an "official" Arcane Archer, I homebrewed one as a subclass of Ranger. Seemed the "no brainer" option for another ranger subclass.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Before 5e had an "official" Arcane Archer, I homebrewed one as a subclass of Ranger. Seemed the "no brainer" option for another ranger subclass.

I swear no one will tell me how ranger gets magic. are they arcane or divine?

 

[TwoSix]

I swear no one will tell me how ranger gets magic. are they arcane or divine?

The PHB defines them as "divine" in the Magic sidebar, although the division between "arcane" and "divine" has no mechanical weight in 5E. It's purely a reference to legacy terms.

 

[Aldarc]

The final version doesn't seem to support this hypothesis.

Now imagine if that was attached to the ranger.

 

[Undrave]

GFB, BB, Sword Burst, Ensnaring Strike, Zepher Strike, Searing Smite, Thunderous Smite, Elemental Weapon, Shield, Blur, Some of the less powerful blaster spells like burning hands, Detect Magic, Magic Weapon, Misty Step, Dispel Magic, Banishment, Steel Wind Strike.

I think we might want to be careful with giving a potential AHC all the "best" offensive/defensive spells of a given level. Just because a spell does direct HP damage or has defensive benefits, it doesn't mean it should automatically be on the list. There is such a thing as stepping on the Wizard/Sorcerer's toes. Sure, the Wizard will have more utility magic, but if the AHC gets all the best combat spells, it leaves less of a place for the Wizard. For instance, I would be careful with even ranged Cantrips, and low level spells like Burning Hands, Shield, Banishment (Banishing Smite might be more appropriate here) & Acid Arrow. Not that those spells are too powerful or don't fit certain AHC concepts, but there should be a little bit of envy for being a pure wizard.

This leaves room for certain Archetypes that can break this rule, like a Swordmage could have more movement based spells, a nature based Archetype could have Speak With Animals, a special demonic warrior could have Firebolt and/or Burning Hands, etc.

I agree. I think if you give them all the Smite spells they end up too similar to the Paladin, for exemple. I feel like they should only have one in their base class list, but that certain subclass would add the other ones in a way similar to the Warlock's Patron Spells. This would be a good way to give flavor to the subclasses. Similarly, you don't want to nab ALL of the Ranger's tools. Basically a mix and match based on a more generic theme rather than effectiveness would be ideal. Zephyr Strike and Misty Step are shoe-ins for sure, though.

Also, the Paladin and Ranger don't get Cantrips as a default so I would be wary of giving this class cantrips... But I would totally give them a way to make their attack magical. No bonus, but no expending ressources. Maybe at like... lv 3 or something you can just DO that.

I think the various 4e Aegis could easily be turned into spells of their own too, if we don't want to come up with a whole new 'mechanic' and would allow the flexibility of making striker or defender builds.

You could easily have a feature at level 1 where they get to pick basically between Heavy Armour Prof, An extra skill and the ability to cast rituals, or a couple of Wizard cantrips. That'd give even more flavor to your build and would reflect different traditions.

a nature one would literally be robbing the ranger of what little it has left.

"Hahaha...Ranger!" -JoCrap

 

[Stormonu]

I swear no one will tell me how ranger gets magic. are they arcane or divine?

They are warrior druids, so to speak - so wherever druids get their spells from, whether it be forces of nature (like a warlock pact) or a nature deity (divine source).

 

[steeldragons]

I swear no one will tell me how ranger gets magic. are they arcane or divine?

According to 5e, I believe, it is considered "divine" since they share a good amount (nearly all) of spells from the Druid's list.

But that, ultimately, is a campaign/setting specific question. How do you (or your DM) define things within your game's setting's world?

Myself, I long ago split Druid's "Nature" magic off from Cleric's "Divine" magic (and/or Arcane). So magic operates in 3 spheres in my homebrew world:

• Divine (magic powered from the "essence" of the gods)
• Nature (magic powered from the inherent "radiation" of "natural world," itself, which includes ye olde "Inner Planes" of Faerie, Shadow, the Elemental, and Energetic planes. So, no, Druids in my setting do not worship "nature personifications [gods]," but Nature -capital "N"- itself, and "the Balance" of the whole)
• and, of course, the Arcane: magic powered by the cosmic energies that pervade the multiuniverse, which supernatural creatures, spirits/demons/et al. extraplanars, other supernatural abilities (like psychic powers) are fueled by, and the deities themselves, all access. Part of the reason that arcane spellcasters pursue arcane mastery in the first place, is that they wish to command the magical power that all of these other types of beings use...without having to "filter" or "water it down" through Nature or the gods.

 

[Mind of tempest]

I agree. I think if you give them all the Smite spells they end up too similar to the Paladin, for exemple. I feel like they should only have one in their base class list, but that certain subclass would add the other ones in a way similar to the Warlock's Patron Spells. This would be a good way to give flavor to the subclasses. Similarly, you don't want to nab ALL of the Ranger's tools. Basically a mix and match based on a more generic theme rather than effectiveness would be ideal. Zephyr Strike and Misty Step are shoe-ins for sure, though.

Also, the Paladin and Ranger don't get Cantrips as a default so I would be wary of giving this class cantrips... But I would totally give them a way to make their attack magical. No bonus, but no expending ressources. Maybe at like... lv 3 or something you can just DO that.

I think the various 4e Aegis could easily be turned into spells of their own too, if we don't want to come up with a whole new 'mechanic' and would allow the flexibility of making striker or defender builds.

You could easily have a feature at level 1 where they get to pick basically between Heavy Armour Prof, An extra skill and the ability to cast rituals, or a couple of Wizard cantrips. That'd give even more flavor to your build and would reflect different traditions.


"Hahaha...Ranger!" -JoCrap

a decent thing similar to smites mechanically is a must but having smite would be wrong.

also, I see a jocrap fan I salute you.

 

[Ashrym]

Bards get Simple weapons, hand crossbows, longswords, rapiers, shortswords. With Swords bard also getting Scimitar.

Pffft...... play a valor bard and build it for whatever weapon.

I swear no one will tell me how ranger gets magic. are they arcane or divine?

Rangers are divine casters.

Arcane casters: arcane trickster, artificer, bard, eldritch knight, sorcerer, warlock, wizard
Divine casters: cleric, druid, paladin, ranger.

Spellcasting monks (like Wo4E) are not listed among either list to throw a wrench into it, but going by the definition of the difference between the two (arcane directly accesses magic and divine uses an intermediary to access magic) the monk would fall under arcane too if we were to enforce that definition.

But it's irrelevant as far as the distinction goes. Magic goes in, magic comes out. The difference is just a ribbon.

There's actually no arcane spell list or divine spell list. The caster determines arcane vs divine. It's been that way since 3e through 3.5, 4e, essentials, and now 5e. The spells being classified as one or the other is a carry over from old editions. A bard casting cure wounds is casting an arcane spell. A cleric casting cure wounds is casting a divine spell. A wizard casting wall of fire is casting an arcane spell. A druid casting wall of fire is casting a divine spell.

I respect a player's right to yell 'get off my lawn' as much as the next guy, but that type of classification of spells is outdated and they might still be living in the past, and by the past I mean a completely different century then ended decades ago. ;-)

The reality is that any spell placed on a hypothetical list for a hypothetical gish class wouldn't matter as long as that gish class is listed as arcane.

The PHB defines them as "divine" in the Magic sidebar, although the division between "arcane" and "divine" has no mechanical weight in 5E. It's purely a reference to legacy terms.

I added info. And that's where I see more of an issue than justifying the trope. The mystic warrior mage trope exists but the distinction between arcane and divine means nothing as it is. There's already so many ways to create a warrior mage that adding another seems less like filling a niche and more like creating something for the sake of creating something.

Between classes, subclasses, feats, and multiclassing with actually arcane classes and then just using divine classes as if they are arcane because the difference is a ribbon we've got plenty of options for a gish. That includes an elements monk for elemental attacks.

I agree. I think if you give them all the Smite spells they end up too similar to the Paladin, for exemple. I feel like they should only have one in their base class list, but that certain subclass would add the other ones in a way similar to the Warlock's Patron Spells. This would be a good way to give flavor to the subclasses. Similarly, you don't want to nab ALL of the Ranger's tools. Basically a mix and match based on a more generic theme rather than effectiveness would be ideal. Zephyr Strike and Misty Step are shoe-ins for sure, though.

Also, the Paladin and Ranger don't get Cantrips as a default so I would be wary of giving this class cantrips... But I would totally give them a way to make their attack magical. No bonus, but no expending ressources. Maybe at like... lv 3 or something you can just DO that.

I think the various 4e Aegis could easily be turned into spells of their own too, if we don't want to come up with a whole new 'mechanic' and would allow the flexibility of making striker or defender builds.

You could easily have a feature at level 1 where they get to pick basically between Heavy Armour Prof, An extra skill and the ability to cast rituals, or a couple of Wizard cantrips. That'd give even more flavor to your build and would reflect different traditions.


"Hahaha...Ranger!" -JoCrap

Rangers and paladins not getting cantrips by default tends to throw off the 1/2 caster 1/3 caster arguments when arcane tricksters and eldritch knights do gain cantrips by default. It brings into question the value of cantrips compare to slightly better spell progression.

The entire 1/2 or 1/3 caster concept is just math for the multiclassing table and the rules don't actually call those classes such. Defining classes in that single aspect is something players do, but it doesn't look at the whole picture.

I would point out that warlocks already replicate divine smiting with the eldritch smite invocation. Unlike divine smite, eldritch smite doesn't have the 5d8 damage cap so warlocks using it are gaining higher level spell slots for smiting earlier than paladins and renewing them on short rests instead of long rests. 9 6d8 smites at 11th level with 2 rests is way more smite damage than a paladin can do over the day. I think we've already got something in place to demonstrate just giving smites or smite spells isn't enough to step on the paladin's toes.

I don't think the smite spells or cantrips (look at artficers) necessarily cause too many issues unless it's over done. The hexblade has access to eldritch smite, smith spells, and cantrips for comparison. That also includes faster access to higher level slots and invocations so it's worth a look to help gauge a hypothetical swordmage.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Pffft...... play a valor bard and build it for whatever weapon.


Rangers are divine casters.

Arcane casters: arcane trickster, artificer, bard, eldritch knight, sorcerer, warlock, wizard
Divine casters: cleric, druid, paladin, ranger.

Spellcasting monks (like Wo4E) are not listed among either list to throw a wrench into it, but going by the definition of the difference between the two (arcane directly accesses magic and divine uses an intermediary to access magic) the monk would fall under arcane too if we were to enforce that definition.

But it's irrelevant as far as the distinction goes. Magic goes in, magic comes out. The difference is just a ribbon.

There's actually no arcane spell list or divine spell list. The caster determines arcane vs divine. It's been that way since 3e through 3.5, 4e, essentials, and now 5e. The spells being classified as one or the other is a carry over from old editions. A bard casting cure wounds is casting an arcane spell. A cleric casting cure wounds is casting a divine spell. A wizard casting wall of fire is casting an arcane spell. A druid casting wall of fire is casting a divine spell.

I respect a player's right to yell 'get off my lawn' as much as the next guy, but that type of classification of spells is outdated and they might still be living in the past, and by the past I mean a completely different century then ended decades ago. ;-)

The reality is that any spell placed on a hypothetical list for a hypothetical gish class wouldn't matter as long as that gish class is listed as arcane.


I added info. And that's where I see more of an issue than justifying the trope. The mystic warrior mage trope exists but the distinction between arcane and divine means nothing as it is. There's already so many ways to create a warrior mage that adding another seems less like filling a niche and more like creating something for the sake of creating something.

Between classes, subclasses, feats, and multiclassing with actually arcane classes and then just using divine classes as if they are arcane because the difference is a ribbon we've got plenty of options for a gish. That includes an elements monk for elemental attacks.



Rangers and paladins not getting cantrips by default tends to throw off the 1/2 caster 1/3 caster arguments when arcane tricksters and eldritch knights do gain cantrips by default. It brings into question the value of cantrips compare to slightly better spell progression.

The entire 1/2 or 1/3 caster concept is just math for the multiclassing table and the rules don't actually call those classes such. Defining classes in that single aspect is something players do, but it doesn't look at the whole picture.

I would point out that warlocks already replicate divine smiting with the eldritch smite invocation. Unlike divine smite, eldritch smite doesn't have the 5d8 damage cap so warlocks using it are gaining higher level spell slots for smiting earlier than paladins and renewing them on short rests instead of long rests. 9 6d8 smites at 11th level with 2 rests is way more smite damage than a paladin can do over the day. I think we've already got something in place to demonstrate just giving smites or smite spells isn't enough to step on the paladin's toes.

I don't think the smite spells or cantrips (look at artficers) necessarily cause too many issues unless it's over done. The hexblade has access to eldritch smite, smith spells, and cantrips for comparison. That also includes faster access to higher level slots and invocations so it's worth a look to help gauge a hypothetical swordmage.

monk would be internal magic so the sibling of psionics.

 

[Ashrym]

monk would be internal magic so the sibling of psionics.

Monks study the magic of ki, which is a magical energy that suffuses the multiverse. Elements monks use that energy to cast spells. It's not internal according to the write up in the PHB. The explanation of divine vs arcane is whether or not magic use has indirect direct access. Monks have direct access. Being ki doesn't change that explanation anymore than bards harnessing the echoes of creation make them a different unique type of spell caster. Same with druids vs cleric. Divine or arcane is how the magic is used, not from where it originates.

But if you say monks are unique it also won't change anything. ;-)

 

[Mind of tempest]

where did you get that understanding of ki starwars?

 

[Ashrym]

where did you get that understanding of ki starwars?

It's in the PHB under monk. First 3 sentences under "The Magic of Ki".

 

[Minigiant]

I swear no one will tell me how ranger gets magic. are they arcane or divine?

The answer is Yes.

The real answer is Rangers pursue magic out of neccesary and learn it from whomever is willing to teach them. So it's mostly divine because many of the spells a ranger needs is divine. But it's an arcane divine. The 5e "Caster level stacks. Slots are slots." works perfect. You could imagine a ranger learning 2 spells from his trainer, 1 from the druids the rangers are aligned with, 1 from an elf wizard who owed him a favor, and 1 from an expert ranger who herself got it from a warlock's archfey patron.

 

[Mind of tempest]

The answer is Yes.

The real answer is Rangers pursue magic out of neccesary and learn it from whomever is willing to teach them. So it's mostly divine because many of the spells a ranger needs is divine. But it's an arcane divine. The 5e "Caster level stacks. Slots are slots." works perfect. You could imagine a ranger learning 2 spells from his trainer, 1 from the druids the rangers are aligned with, 1 from an elf wizard who owed him a favor, and 1 from an expert ranger who herself got it from a warlock's archfey patron.

yeah I am going to say something super controversial but ranger really needs to go back to the drawing board so we can at least figure out what it is supposed to be.

 

[Mind of tempest]

It's in the PHB under monk. First 3 sentences under "The Magic of Ki".

remind me I need to make a thread about monks as wotc is terrible at them.

 

[Minigiant]

yeah I am going to say something super controversial but ranger really needs to go back to the drawing board so we can at least figure out what it is supposed to be.

The ranger knows what it's supposed to be.

The issue is and always has been: fans, including the designers themselves, don't like the answer because of what it entails.

 

[steeldragons]

yeah I am going to say something super controversial but ranger really needs to go back to the drawing board so we can at least figure out what it is supposed to be.

OBJECTION! Asked and answered. Lol.

There have been, umpteen hundredy thousand AND TWO threads about what the Ranger class is, is supposed to be, is NOT supposed to be, should have, should NOT have, maketh, maketh NOT, and who TF is this Aragorn joker think he IS?!

I myself have created and posted no fewer than 3 different takes on a ranger, with multiple subclasses, each. Others here, I can think of at least 2, have done the same.

Threads upon threads upon threads on this topic are available. I presume a simple search will turn them up.

But, yeah...wow...the Ranger is, like, the neverending black hole of class design. lol.