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

[doctorbadwolf]

But D&D not only makes wizards develop 90% of arcane spells regardless of how smart or ambitious other classes might be, D&D also makes them too stupid to hire wizards either.

What? Says who? Where and when?

 

[Minigiant]

What? Says who? Where and when?

the designers who only print spells for wizards and clerics

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Same with an EK. Abjuration makes sense but as 1/3 casters, their evocation damage lags behind threats's HP. Transmutation buffs make more sense.

This also bugs me, because...not really. Scorching Ray doesn’t do less damage than a couple weapon attacks, especially when the EK can follow it up with a greatsword or heavy crossbow attack as a bonus action.

I allow my EK players to pick from the ranger spell list or the full Wizard list instead if they want, because it has more gish spells, but evocation spells work fine.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

the designers who only print spells for wizards and clerics

That is an incredible leap. It’s not reasonable to ask others to follow it.

 

[Ashrym]

most groups do not use primal in my experience as they literally do not know what it is as they got told to never think about 4e.

Then I'll step up and tell them to try 4e out for themselves to see what the think of it. It wasn't exactly my favorite edition but there were things I liked about it.

"No, because 4e" isn't much of an argument against any mechanic. ;-)

The point is, however, that I can say I draw my magic from the power of Chuck Norris's beard and it wouldn't change anything.

Fluff is whatever players make if it, and arcane vs divine is pretty much just that.

 

[tetrasodium]

Okay. Got it.

On the other hand, being able to switch elements pretty much avoids this, and it’s thematic as hell.

That's only half the equation though. There is a cost involved with having extra spells/can trips known/prepared in order to be able to switch elements" while 5e largely ignores that for casters other than warlock aside from the deliberately overturned forced choice spells dubbed iconic

 

[Minigiant]

That is an incredible leap. It’s not reasonable to ask others to follow it.

Not a big leap.
There are less than 10 unique ranger spells and only one created after the PHB. And there are fewnew arcane weapon spells and almost no new arcane armor spells for partial warrior arcanists to use.

If some were to lookat the nondivine spells officially printed in 5e, it would not e crazy to think the full casters designed 99% of them as they fit the playstyle of full casters more.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Not a big leap.
There are less than 10 unique ranger spells and only one created after the PHB. And there are fewnew arcane weapon spells and almost no new arcane armor spells for partial warrior arcanists to use.

If some were to lookat the nondivine spells officially printed in 5e, it would not e crazy to think the full casters designed 99% of them as they fit the playstyle of full casters more.

Or, we get more spells for the classes that have the highest number of spells known/prepared, and are most focused on casting, because that’s good for the playability.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That's only half the equation though. There is a cost involved with having extra spells/can trips known/prepared in order to be able to switch elements" while 5e largely ignores that for casters other than warlock aside from the deliberately overturned forced choice spells dubbed iconic

That doesn’t especially matter. A class whose cool thing is a small damage buff and a bigger versatility buff in the form of choosing their damage type isn’t going to break the game.

 

[Minigiant]

Or, we get more spells for the classes that have the highest number of spells known/prepared, and are most focused on casting, because that’s good for the playability.

one thing doesn't exclude the others.

You can give wizards and clerics a lot of spells AND throw other spellcasters more spells.
You'd have to in order to make a decent AHC.