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

[Mind of tempest]

Why is it needed? The player can fill in their own details when they decide to choose the class.

prewritten flavour can make it easier to sell a class as some classes need a story others do not, given that one has not court on it suggest that this is a concept that needs a story as well as a catchy name.

how did you get that pdf made so fast?

 

[Stormonu]

how did you get that pdf made so fast?

Magic!

 

[DEFCON 1]

There doesn't need to be one unifying vision of what a fighter/mage mix needs to be - you need enough of a skeleton to hang a frame on it, and then let the subclasses do the major lifting.

You are of course completely incorrect. If what you said was true, there'd BE an arcane half-caster in the game because people have been clamoring for this idea for decades. But it's never stuck. Not once.

The people in D&D have tried to create this idea dozens of times. Either the actual company that designs D&D has tried it, or the swarms of third-party producers have tried it, or all the randos on DMs Guild have tried to make one.

And none of them last and none of them show up beyond a single article or a single edition (if that).

Why? Because the theme of "big buff warrior that swings a sword and cast spells too" does nothing to suggest needing your own class. And it doesn't matter that designers could come up with all-new mechanics for this so-called class. That doesn't matter. It's never mattered. The game mechanics ARE NOT what the issue is. If the best or only reason for coming up with a new class idea is "Hey, we can make some new mechanics!"... it ain't gonna work. Story is what matters. Mechanics do not.

So until someone comes up with an actual in-world reason why a warrior that mixes magic in with their weapon use needs to be its own job, its own identity, have its own place within the game world... you are going to be left with just recycling the same tired attempts that people have made over and over and over and over again because nothing "official" ever stands the test of time. Sorry. That's just how it is.

 

[Aldarc]

If the trope for an arcane half-caster was obvious, it would have been popularized by now.

I do think it's popular and it's reiterated quite often in the game,* but D&D has often resorted to multiclassing as the solution. But IMO, I don't think that it's a good one, since it doesn't address the often conflict between physical and magical combat action efficiency, and multiclassing often involves a reduced efficiency in spell and attack progression.

* Elf Class, the "Gish," the Spellsword, the 4e Swordmage, the Duskblade, the Eldritch Knight, etc. Over in Pathfinder land, the Magus is a fairly popular class. The Mageblade was a popular class in AU/AE. This was arguably what the Bard was: the half-caster and jack-of-all-trades.

Since it's not, obviously coming up with a compelling trope is difficult.

I don't think that it's terribly difficult really, and Defcon's reductionism doesn't help matters either. What makes the ranger's story compelling when we could likewise just say that it's a fighter in the woods or that the paladin is just a fighter/cleric multiclass? But what is the story of a fighter? The person who fights? What is the story of a mage? The person who does magic? In the case of the swordmage, I would consider why such a relatively obvious combination of skillsets would possibly emerge or be needed in the context of D&D's presumed fiction.

I would possibly propose building the swordmage, ironically enough, as an anti-mage or spellbreaker. Magic and mages in the world of D&D are dangerous, and the swordmage is equipped with both the swords and the sorcery to shut mages down, bypass spells and arcane wards, and resist magical monsters.

What differentiates the arcane half-caster (AHC) from the paladin or ranger? Obviously, the main difference would need to be their spell list. What sort of spells feel "arcane" as opposed to what the ranger and paladin get? Blasty evocations? Force magic? Spatial/extradimensional magic? The fact that arcane magic in D&D is a fairly broad category makes nailing down the specialty of an AHC more difficult.

Likely spells practical for in-combat usage, whether through melee or ranged weapons.

The best examples from existing media I can think of is The Witcher (one could also argue ranger for Geralt), and a host of JRPG hero types.

The Jedi Knights say "hello," and you obviously allude to the Red Mage of Final Fantasy.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Magic!

ah, the thing I can't do.

found my notes they are likely only a mediocre idea so do not put too much in it.

first, why would an arcane half caster appear in-universe?
fairly simply the most likely set of people to generate the need for this kind of class is a magocracy as they would need some less squishy enforcers of their will that can not just be dispelled by other magic.
eventually, they would want something with more power than a fighter but less of the restrictions of the paladin. thus teaching fighter magic would giver rise to things like the eldritch knight, arcane trickster and the echo knight. as anyone could tell they would not quite be what they(and we)want.
this is the bit that needs story may be made with something possibly enhanced somehow?

creating something as useful as smite but very different
thinking about things which damage a bit but are mostly ways to inflict status effects and debuffs. no idea what to call it but its basic use is structurally similar to smite in basic mechanics but used at ranged?

basic level up ideas
Here is where things start getting tricky as level up abilities are a heavily mechanic based thing.
okay here is the idea people love the customisability of the warlock so why not have a somewhat lesser variant of that as each subclass level up, given the thematics I set up for this class it would also work nicely.
concepts for subclasses
each subclass spell level only goes up to five like other half casters but each one is based on two types of arcane magic.
I must not base the subclasses on just the logical combinations of the magic schools. I suck at names but here it goes.

1 evocation and conjuration lots of bouncing around the battlefield like the swordmage but with a lot more elemental damage attacks and summons backing them up when numbers are needed. most likely designed to be medium armoured the standard one first built designed to conquer territory and remove external threats.

2 abjuration and necromancy your arcane juggernaut, hard to hurt, heavily armoured, can regain health by hurting its enemies, lots of necrotic damage, and ways to hurt your enemies soul. basic in-universe function somewhere between mage policers, heavy troops and undead killer.

3 illusion and enchantment closer to rogues than fighters, stealthy with seemingly endless ways to deceived others and exploit the mind. need a magic item, spellbook or scroll "collected" get these guys on it, need intelligence on a place get one of these to handle it, need a population deceived into rebellion this subclass was built for it. basic inspiration what would a secret agent be if given magic and they were made for a fantasy setting. I think my concept here is weaker than I would like but lots of people would still pick it.

4 divination and transmutation. medium armoured will likely be getting most of its damage form weapons but is the subclass for people who find reality unsatisfactory(possible class motto reality is an illusion and I can prove it.) with the highest number of ways to flat out modify the situation for people who live to make combat "interesting" some subtle luck manipulation and giving them some chronomancy powers late game? think they arose as an attempt to make a better battlefield fighter then they mutated into a cult believing that reality is not real(whether or not they are right is dm discretion

 

[DEFCON 1]

I do think it's popular and it's reiterated quite often in the game,* but D&D has often resorted to multiclassing as the solution. But IMO, I don't think that it's a good one, since it doesn't address the often conflict between physical and magical combat action efficiency, and multiclassing often involves a reduced efficiency in spell and attack progression.

* Elf Class, the "Gish," the Spellsword, the 4e Swordmage, the Duskblade, the Eldritch Knight, etc. Over in Pathfinder land, the Magus is a fairly popular class. The Mageblade was a popular class in AU/AE. This was arguably what the Bard was: the half-caster and jack-of-all-trades.


I don't think that it's terribly difficult really, and Defcon's reductionism doesn't help matters either. What makes the ranger's story compelling when we could likewise just say that it's a fighter in the woods or that the paladin is just a fighter/cleric multiclass? But what is the story of a fighter? The person who fights? What is the story of a mage? The person who does magic? In the case of the swordmage, I would consider why such a relatively obvious combination of skillsets would possibly emerge or be needed in the context of D&D's presumed fiction.

I would possibly propose building the swordmage, ironically enough, as an anti-mage or spellbreaker. Magic and mages in the world of D&D are dangerous, and the swordmage is equipped with both the swords and the sorcery to shut mages down, bypass spells and arcane wards, and resist magical monsters.


Likely spells practical for in-combat usage, whether through melee or ranged weapons.


The Jedi Knights say "hello," and you obviously allude to the Red Mage of Final Fantasy.

Okay... so tell me what is the "in-world" identities of the

Gish
Spellsword
Swordmage
Eldritch Knight
Duskblade
Magus

...besides just "warrior that casts wizard spells"?

You ask me what a Paladin is, I'll give you a whole heap of "in-world" identity of what it is besides "warrior that casts cleric spells". The Paladin actually has a job in the game world. Likewise... I can tell you all the things a Ranger is in addition to "warrior that casts druid spells". Because a Ranger is a thing to be.

But what does a Spellsword do? What is their function in the game world? Because if you can't come up with a compelling STORY for the class... it ain't gonna stick-- as we have seen all those times before where all those so-called "classes" showed up once, were barely embraced, and then never showed up again.

Heck... THE WARLORD has more juice right now in the game as a class than any of those arcane warrior half-casters do. Because the Warlord actually has somewhat of a story. They are military tacticians and strategists that lead, organize, or enhance the combat strength of small arms parties up through full armies. But then again... the whole reason why this class hasn't actually appeared in 5E is because some people back at WotC don't even feel like THAT story is enough to warrant being its own class-- they still think the Fighter can in many ways handle that story. And while some players keep clamoring for it because they want different and new MECHANICS for this class... new mechanics have never been the reason for a new class to be made.

As I said above... the fighter, rogue, cleric and wizard are the only four classes that are and get to be generic. Because those are the Core Four classes in the game. Any other class beyond those that is going to be embraced by the D&D populace at large HAS to have more than that. It has to have a reason for its existence beyond "new mechanics".

Because we have seen time and time again what happens when we don't.

 

[Stormonu]

@Mind of tempest - this link should help if you want to format something up 5Eish - The Homebrewery - NaturalCrit

 

[Mind of tempest]

@Mind of tempest - this link should help if you want to format something up 5Eish - The Homebrewery - NaturalCrit

I was more trying to get my ideas down, crunch is not my strong suit.

did any of my thing have any bit worth thinking about?

 

[TwoSix]

I do think it's popular and it's reiterated quite often in the game,* but D&D has often resorted to multiclassing as the solution. But IMO, I don't think that it's a good one, since it doesn't address the often conflict between physical and magical combat action efficiency, and multiclassing often involves a reduced efficiency in spell and attack progression.

* Elf Class, the "Gish," the Spellsword, the 4e Swordmage, the Duskblade, the Eldritch Knight, etc. Over in Pathfinder land, the Magus is a fairly popular class. The Mageblade was a popular class in AU/AE. This was arguably what the Bard was: the half-caster and jack-of-all-trades.

Oh, absolutely. Don't forget stuff like 4e Mage of the Spiral Tower, or 3.5 Abjurant Champion as well. Heck, Tome of Battle's Swordsage used some novel mechanics to fulfull a similar role.

I don't think that it's terribly difficult really, and Defcon's reductionism doesn't help matters either. What makes the ranger's story compelling when we could likewise just say that it's a fighter in the woods or that the paladin is just a fighter/cleric multiclass? But what is the story of a fighter? The person who fights? What is the story of a mage? The person who does magic? In the case of the swordmage, I would consider why such a relatively obvious combination of skillsets would possibly emerge or be needed in the context of D&D's presumed fiction.

I feel like @DEFCON 1's point, which I'm sympathetic too, is that the AHC doesn't have a preexisting story that's looking for that specific mechanic. There's nothing wrong with creating a mechanic to fill a need and then placing a story on it (4e did it best here with concepts like Invoker, Avenger, and Warden), but it's tricky to get those to stick. It's harder to for the game to build new tropes now that it was in the 1970's, when these ideas hadn't been iterated on over and over again.

The tropes that seem to stick for an AHC are agile one-handed weapon users, with a good selection of blasts and buffs.

The Jedi Knights say "hello," and you obviously allude to the Red Mage of Final Fantasy.

Jedi have a lot of their own baggage, and don't really seem to fit with the "armored guy casting fireball" that a lot of people want. Jedi, to me, feel like they fit under the Magic Knight trope but are differentiated enough from the hypothetical "AHC" to be their own thing. Red Mage is definitely better (especially the FFXIV version); I was thinking of characters like Crono from Chrono Trigger, Terra and Celes from FFVI, and some of the protagonist characters from Dragon Quest/Warrior.

 

[Charlaquin]

The problem we have always had with the idea of an arcane half-caster is that no one (even people who have tried creating their own) has been able to come up with the most important part of the class-- its story.

That's why no arcane half-caster has ever survived or ingrained itself in the collective D&D consciousness to become an actual "thing"... no one has created a thematic story for the class that puts in on par with the ranger and the paladin. There hasn't been anything for this class to hang its hat on.

I mean, what are the stories of these three classes in D&D?

The paladin is a divine half-caster, but is also a knight, a templar, a holy warrior that swears to uphold certain ideals that society finds important. They are the champions and defenders of society.

The ranger is a primal half-caster, but also a wilderness warrior, a defender of the wilds, a champion of nature that moves swiftly through it to protect it from those that would use it for nefarious deeds.

The arcane half-caster? It's a fighter that casts spells.

Yep. That's it. That has always been the "story" that people have created for the arcane half-caster. That's what an eldritch knight is. That's what a swordmage was. That's all it's ever been. And that's why no one and no edition has ever stuck with it as a class. Because it has no story, no theme, nothing to give it any heft. Nothing to make it a CLASS rather than just a multiclass of two generic classes smushed together.

If we ever want to see an arcane half-caster be a thing and become an actual class that remains in the game... we need to all agree on what its story is. Who in medieval D&D society needs to be a warrior who casts wizard spells? What do they do? What is their duty in the world? What do they believe in and fight for? And whatever it is... it needs to be an actual specific type of person on par with the ranger and the paladin. One who theme is so strong that it can support multiple variants of its story that come into play via subclasses.

The fighter, rogue, cleric, and wizard are the only four classes that get away with being somewhat "generic". But the other eight have major story, lore, and fluff connected to them. Barbarians, bards, druids, monks, paladins, rangers, sorcerers, and warlocks are just covered in fluff, and that's why they've stayed in the game. Because they are specific archetypes that the game and its players have determined they WANT to have available, moreso than just making multiclasses.

Could the game work with just a fighter/cleric multiclass for their holy warrior archetype? Sure... but people want PALADINS.

Could the game work with just a fighter/druid multiclass for their wilderness defender? Sure... but people want RANGERS.

Could the game work with just a fighter/wizard multiclass? It always has. But if you want an actual class for it now... then we need to come up with WHAT IT IS.

I agree that an an arcane half-caster needs a solid archetype to really work as a class. And I think the core of that concept is there in people’s heads, it just needs fleshing out. That’s why people don’t see the artificer as filling the arcane half-caster role - even though it fits the bill mechanically, it’s a totally different concept than what people want out of an arcane half-caster. That’s also why the bard has never quite satisfied the desire for such a character, even when it was a half-caster. I think you could re-tool the bard into something closer to what people want out of an arcane half-caster, but not without losing some of what makes the D&D bard what it is.

I think the way to go with the arcane half-caster would be to make it D&D’s take on Geralt of Rivia, the same way the ranger is D&D’s take on Aragorn. Maybe they’re less half-wizard, more half-sorcerer. Perhaps the result of an attempt to create sorcerers intentionally, through some combination of eugenics, magical (trans-)mutation, and alchemy. Obviously leave it flexible - some might have been bred to be super-soldiers, some may have volunteered to be test subjects, some may have been unwitting subjects of a curse, some may have been born under an inauspicious sign. Point is, ordinary people who had inherent spellcasting ability somehow induced in them.