Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ashrym" data-source="post: 8202770" data-attributes="member: 6750235">Pffft...... play a valor bard and build it for whatever weapon.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Rangers are divine casters.  Arcane casters: arcane trickster, artificer, bard, eldritch knight, sorcerer, warlock, wizardDivine 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a player's right to yell 'get off my lawn' as much as the next guy, but that type of classification of spells is outdated and they might still be living in the past, and by the past I mean a completely different century then ended decades ago.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.</blockquote>

Verification