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

[jmartkdr2]

I mean that's kind of what the Swordmage was in 4E, and why the Eldritch Knight has Evocation and Abjuration as their two schools. The "magical defender" idea.

The only problem is that there hasn't been a job in your prototypical D&D setting that needed this archetype. Now you could certainly invent one-- the same way the Paladin was a wandering holy knight and the Ranger was a wilderness protector, the Swordmage could be the defender of... something. But what?

A defender of the nobility? They are the magical bodyguards of kings and counts?

A defender of the peasants? They are hedge mages that become the folk heroes of small villages?

A protector of reality? They are the guardians of the portals to other worlds?

A bulwark against magic? They are the breakers of spellcasters gone amok?

What else is there? What other concepts can we come up with? If we try and think in these terms... figure out what these arcane warriors do with their abilities, what people pay them to protect (or what they volunteer to protect)... maybe we will find an identity that everyone will go "Yes! That's it! That's what we want our arcane half-caster to be!" And maybe it'll enter the collective gaming unconsciousness and it become an inevitability that it DOES get added to D&D as a permanent fixture.

I would go with 'protector' as a general start - we don't want to get too specific - and then come up with a way to make them protect that doesn't simply make them a variant of another class.

Put another way: if rangers weren't already a thing, your arguments against adding them would be exactly the same. I'll go with "we need a story" and "we need a mechanic that makes them stand out", and I'll raise you "the mechanic needs to support the story in a real and direct way."

Way back in 4e I made a bodyguard pc that was linked to another pc. His main thing was that they had a pair of magic rings - this allowed the bodyguard to teleport to the protectee as a minor or free action (I forget) and immediately attack with a big ol' axe. I would use this as the core idea.

Your magical guard can 'mark' a person, place, or thing as that which they will protect. (instead of marking an enemy, they mark an ally) They get special, magical abilities that help them do this, while using weapons to strike back. This could include teleporting to them (starting with small ranges), taking damage for them, or free attacks against things that target the mark. These options can get broader and more impressive as they gain levels. They should also have a selection of spells for utility and fun special attacks.

Is there anything else the class seed needs?

Edit: a few additional thoughts:
1. a shield-as-weapon option should be available
2. subclasses should probably be based on what your protecting, although special magic styles are also an option.
3. This will definitely need not only a new spell list but several new spells to support the style.
4. The 'default' flavor should probably be 'bodyguard', as that's the simplest version of the idea, but like all classes there should be a lot of range in terms of the specifics. The universal is that you protect, not what you protect.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Ehh...I'll be honest, the Witcher is what I think the ranger should be striving to be. It's the guy who survives because he's worldly; he's seen some s**t and knows how to prepare for it. Almost every ranger subclass comes with a bit of backstory that implies they've seen some weird stuff, and know how to handle it.

I absolutely agree!

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Have we gone from the original concept of "Arcane half-caster" to "another type of gish"?

When creating a new class, the main questions I have are:
A) What does this class actually do in a fight?
Are they just concentrating on a defensive spell while they fight in a mundane fashion with their weapon?
Do they throw offensive spells as a major part of their repertoire?
Fight mundanely but use spells to foil other casters and can burn spell slots to defend against spells and supernatural effects?

B) What do they do out of combat?
Ritual spells and a massive range of spells like the wizard?
Enchantment spells for social situations? Transport spells? Detection spells?

C) What do they do that is unique? Rangers rule the wilderness and exploration. Paladins have Lay on hands and Smites. Artificers are versatile and have sustained support for long days.

D) What is their place in the world?
Are they dedicated mage-slayers? Bodyguards? Magic-detectors? Draconic servants?

 

[Frozen_Heart]

I can't believe I made an account just for this topic, but as I'm extremely invested and desperately want a 'swordmage' arcane half caster, here I am...

I've got to say I completely agree with Defcon here. Swordmage type classes have always lacked any thematic identity beyond 'person who can cast and hit', which is one of the reasons they never stick in the collective consciousness. Everyone knows that the rough concept should have something, but the result are disjointed attempts like eldritch knight, which always fail to live up to what people are asking for mechanically, even if the theme is correct.

What is always missed is people don't want half a wizard one turn, then half a fighter the next turn. They want a class which can set their sword on fire (or other elemental effects), and smack things with it. Yeah in 5e the paladin can do this, but it's got so much thematic and divine baggage that the people wanting a swordmage won't touch it.

So we're in this weird position where both the mechanics and the theme are in 5e, but on two completely separate classes.

• I've got to say I like the witcher monster hunter thematic ideas, but the issue there is you're fighting ranger for that thematic niche.
• Mage hunter is nice as an identity, as the mechanics of prior edition versions of the class hint towards it.
• One idea for the identity of the class I've always had is one who gathers and 'confiscates' arcane lore and artefacts deemed too dangerous to exist out in the world.
• The old kingdom book series also has an extremely good 'swordmage' type main characters, some acting to keep the dead down, while others act as seers. They're heavily based around a type of magic using runes.
• Other themes could also be brought under the banner of arcane half caster. Such as elemental themed planeswalker swordmages (genasi really suit the theme), or death/blood knights who go for an more undead/vampiric/lich type feel.
• Magic enforcers or knights, guarding powerful individuals or artefacts (or enforcing their will) is another one I keep seeing pop up.

- Most of these concepts seem to point towards individuals who go out and use a mixture of magic and martial abilities to combat threat beyond which normal people can deal with, whether it's dangerous monsters, magical artefacts and lore, power hungry mages, extraplanar threats, or rising dead. Imo there is definitely some potential to start weaving together a class identity around those, while mechanically its identity can be around the spellstriking type abilities which the prior versions of the class are so well known for.

 

[jmartkdr2]

What is always missed is people don't want half a wizard one turn, then half a fighter the next turn. They want a class which can set their sword on fire (or other elemental effects), and smack things with it. Yeah in 5e the paladin can do this, but it's got so much thematic and divine baggage that the people wanting a swordmage won't touch it.

Welcome!

I pulled out this paragraph because I want to say: there's a darn good argument to be made that this character concept doesn't need a new class. 5e doesn't have a good swordmage, but that's not intrinsic to 5e's core rules. Nor is it because swordmage can't be fit into any existing class. It's just that there aren't any good/satisfying official options.

Paladin and hexblade both do a pretty good job getting the feel of blended magic and weapons, but with rp baggage that's hard to excise without a lot of houseruled changes to class features. Eldritch Knight gets enough spell slots, they just don't get the right spells. Even swords bard comes close-ish, although again you don't have enough of the right kinds of spells to make playing like a swordmage attractive compared to playing like a bard.

So I suppose part of the answer to OP's question is "because it shouldn't be necessary" (or even "we do, but nobody likes the one we have.")

 

[TwoSix]

Brainstorming here, so apologies for being somewhat stream of consciousness.

If arcane is traditionally held to be in opposition to divine, than it makes sense that the arcane half-caster would be in opposition to the paladin, which is an extremely strong trope with tons of identification as the "divine warrior".

So aesthetically, the paladin is very much tied to sword and board, heavy armor, mounted knight visualizations. Themes of faith, endurance, and protection, lots of radiant light imagery. So let's reverse it, but stay on a warrior thematic without going full dark knight.

No shield, no armor. Dueling weapon or big weapon. Protected by skill and magical potency, not armor. Evades, parries, and counters, doesn't endure big hits. (Trope precedent: Avenger, bladesinger. Contrast with spellsword, abjurant champion, possibly heavy armor/Str as subclass theme.)

Weapon possibly imbued or empowered by arcane energy (Precedent: Black blade magus, swordmage, hexblade warlock). Magic focused on mobility, aggression, spell strikes with weapons. Haste a must (Precedent: 3.5 swiftblade). Paladin heals and protects, AHC is more offensive, but still has some support. Focus on elemental, force, dimensional spells (Precedent: swordmage).

Paladin leans lawful good (as a trope), AHC leans towards chaotic. Liberator and seeker, as opposed to protector and champion. Like paladin, warrior first, caster second. Thematic of warrior who has some innate magic because of their natural talent, not a mage who has bent their magic towards fighting. Bladesinger, sword bard, hexblade already have "caster who picked up fighting tricks" trope covered.

Possible subclasses: Templar (anti-magic/magebreaker), Enhanced (imbued with magic, possibly against their will), Swiftblade (focused on mobility and teleportation).

 

[Frozen_Heart]

Welcome!

I pulled out this paragraph because I want to say: there's a darn good argument to be made that this character concept doesn't need a new class. 5e doesn't have a good swordmage, but that's not intrinsic to 5e's core rules. Nor is it because swordmage can't be fit into any existing class. It's just that there aren't any good/satisfying official options.

Paladin and hexblade both do a pretty good job getting the feel of blended magic and weapons, but with rp baggage that's hard to excise without a lot of houseruled changes to class features. Eldritch Knight gets enough spell slots, they just don't get the right spells. Even swords bard comes close-ish, although again you don't have enough of the right kinds of spells to make playing like a swordmage attractive compared to playing like a bard.

So I suppose part of the answer to OP's question is "because it shouldn't be necessary" (or even "we do, but nobody likes the one we have.")

I mean you do raise a good point there. Eldritch Knight or similar could have functioned as the 'gish' people were looking for. The trouble is it doesn't. If eldritch knight had just been given its own spell list, with a selection of spells similar to paladin and ranger but more arcane based, many people people would have accepted it. However given it the wizards list was the nail in the coffin for that class right from the start. As the wizards list is intentionally designed not to make it a close combat monster, and instead focus on other areas.

It's like if there was a class called barbarian, with all the barbarian themes. But it didn't have a rage mechanic. The class would be in game, we wouldn't need a new class. And yet we would get a post a day asking for an 'angry warrior with rage' class, because no one would be happy with the barbarian.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

I wonder if the concept of a Binder has legs. Someone who mixes magical and martial skill for the purpose of binding and sealing beings like Fiends and Fey that the Paladin would just destroy. It seems like a concept not well explored yet that could fit.

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.

I think these ideas have good synergy with each other, and could come together into a pretty cohesive and cool class. It’s too bad the name “binder” already has D&D connotations, but I do like “spellbreaker” too.

I’m picturing a class who is magically engineered to combat magic users and/or magical beings. Through some sort of magical intervention, they have sorcerer-like inherent magical abilities induced in them, perhaps by an unscrupulous mage, perhaps by a military organization, perhaps by the cosmos itself, to combat some magical threat. Then you’ve also got some interesting room for the player to mess around with how their character feels about whoever or whatever created them and the purpose they were created for - do they embrace it, do they reject it, and what do they do with themselves when/if their task is complete? All great stuff.

One thing I really like about this is that I think the traditional gish fits into this theoretical class really nicely. The thing they were created to combat being mind flayers.

 

[TwoSix]

I think these ideas have good synergy with each other, and could come together into a pretty cohesive and cool class. It’s too bad the name “binder” already has D&D connotations, but I do like “spellbreaker” too.

I’m picturing a class who is magically engineered to combat magic users and/or magical beings. Through some sort of magical intervention, they have sorcerer-like inherent magical abilities induced in them, perhaps by an unscrupulous mage, perhaps by a military organization, perhaps by the cosmos itself, to combat some magical threat. Then you’ve also got some interesting room for the player to mess around with how their character feels about whoever or whatever created them and the purpose they were created for - do they embrace it, do they reject it, and what do they do with themselves when/if their task is complete? All great stuff.

One thing I really like about this is that I think the traditional gish fits into this theoretical class really nicely. The thing they were created to combat being mind flayers.

That does suggest a whole host of subclasses, based on whatever threat you were created/born to counter.

 

[Charlaquin]

If you had a paladin, a ranger, an artificer, and this hypothetical AHC in a party together, what could/should the AHC bring to the table that the others don't, both in terms on concepts and abilities?

Riffing off my idea of the half-sorcerer, maybe Metamagic. And riffing further off the idea of a binder/spellbreaker, what about Metamagic that you can perform on other people’s spells? Enhance your allies’ magic and weaken your opponents’, without directly countering or dispelling them (though I imagine they’d have those on their spell list as well.)