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

[Aldarc]

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.

At the very least, if there was a Defcon class, I can definitely tell you that it's in-world identity would involve gish-galloping others while ignoring at least one tentative in-world identity proposed in the post they are quoting.

 

[Stormonu]

Gish - a mercenary sellsword who augments his martial abilities with magical spells and attacks. Like the ronin of Japanese myth, these individuals travel the world selling their service for coin or perhaps attaching themselves city guard forces or armies where their skill is useful.

Spellsword - an academic martial student who mixes physical drills and mental studies to master and combine the martial and mystical arts. Usually found in more urban areas where they may belong to schools that fraternize and possibly compete with one another.

Swordmage - a wizardly being who augments their impressive magical ability with mundane martial abilties. Often found in wild areas of lawlessness or traipsing through forgotten dungeons for forgotten knowledge or magics.

Eldritch Knight - a consummate martial knight of noble breeding and birth who augments their martial skill with the magical arts. Their well-established noble houses mix with the aristocracy of the land and they are often offered positions of power and leadership in armies or other martial establishments.

Duskblade - a mysterious master of magic, stealth and martial skill. They live on the fringe of society, using their skills against the secret enemies of the world - fighting from the shadows, as it were.

Magus - see Swordmage.

ALL of these could be subclasses of the same fighter/wizard subclass, stressing different aspects and qualities of the class.

 

[Charlaquin]

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 agree that the idea of combining steel and sorcery is popular, that’s why we keep seeing attempts to make such a class. But the reason none of them have had staying power is that they don’t have much of an identity beyond just using weapons/armor and also casting spells. To make a Gish with longevity, it needs an archetype. It needs to answer not just how the character plays, but who the character is.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

Well. Mechanics have often been the reason for a new class to be made. That was arguably the worst culprit behind the bloat of late 3.5 and late 4e. But yeah, classes that only fill a mechanical role end up feeling hollow and lack staying power.

 

[Mind of tempest]

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.

so we have similar thoughts, did you read my messy idea post?

 

[jmartkdr2]

I agree that the idea of combining steel and sorcery is popular, that’s why we keep seeing attempts to make such a class. But the reason none of them have had staying power is that they don’t have much of an identity beyond just using weapons/armor and also casting spells. To make a Gish with longevity, it needs an archetype. It needs to answer not just how the character plays, but who the character is.

Most of the better attempts at the class build the story around a special relationship with the weapon itself: it's never just a sword, the sword is somehow magical in and of itself and the character's magic flows both from and through it.

OTOH, it's not like the concept needs a class, really. Aside from 'need' being a silly word to use in game design conversations, darn near any of the stories we'd want to tell fit within the umbrellas of existing classes, or at least could with a little tweaking. The problem is story and mechanics are not the same thing, and mechanics matter. Especially since at least 1/3 of classes, according to Defcon, don't need stories anyways, because they have tradition on their side (and the tradition for AHC is apparently "we'll do it badly as a non-core option.")

The story of an Eldritch Knight is fine, but the class, when you play it, doesn't live up to the story.

My own hot take it that this is because the wizard spell list does not, and can not, do a good job covering a totally different playstyle (specifically the one being imposed by the fighter chassis.) If paladins were told to use the cleric spell list, they would be an unsatisfying class as well, because without smites a paladin isn't any different from a fighter/cleric multiclass with a lot of extra fluff.

If subclasses aren't allowed to have their own spell list, you'll never get a satisfying AHC. Whereas a new class class could easily absorb all the unpopular attempts.

 

[DEFCON 1]

ALL of these could be subclasses of the same fighter/wizard subclass, stressing different aspects and qualities of the class.

But what's the CLASS? Tell me the story of the class. What does the class do? You gave me all the subclasses, but not what the class does. Why do all those subclasses need to be underneath a new class, rather than subclasses of the Fighter, Wizard, and Rogue?

 

[Charlaquin]

so we have similar thoughts, did you read my messy idea post?

Not thoroughly. It looked like a lot of it was still focused on what they do when I think the thing that’s most needed is who they are.

 

[Stormonu]

But what's the CLASS? Tell me the story of the class. What does the class do? You gave me all the subclasses, but not what the class does. Why do all those subclasses need to be underneath a new class, rather than subclasses of the Fighter, Wizard, and Rogue?

I posted a PDF earlier, why not check that? I even wrote it up as a full class with several subclasses built into it.

 

[Aldarc]

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.

Since WotC took over, D&D added the Sorcerer, Artificer, and Warlock as classes, so the potential sticking power of newer tropes is definitely there.

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.

Sure, jedi have their own baggage, but shifting this to a conversation about their baggage does move the goal post about providing examples of mage-knights in popular culture, of which jedi knights are an obvious example along with FF Red Mages.

I agree that the idea of combining steel and sorcery is popular, that’s why we keep seeing attempts to make such a class. But the reason none of them have had staying power is that they don’t have much of an identity beyond just using weapons/armor and also casting spells. To make a Gish with longevity, it needs an archetype. It needs to answer not just how the character plays, but who the character is.

This is one reason why I proposed something along the idea of a spellbreaker, where a synthesis of sword and sorcery is sometimes needed to fight magical spells, retrieve or deal with powerful magical artifacts, and subdue magical creatures. This is to say, it's a class that seeks to protect themselves and others from a dangerous, magical world or even guard sites of magic from dark spellcasters, extraplanar outsiders, and the like. You sense magic the way that a paladin senses undead, celestials, and fiends.