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


log in or register to remove this ad

Technically, the pet isn't mandatory. It says you can make one, not that you must make one.
It's baked into the balance of the class and it's quite a power loss to not make one, that's the issue. That's a very common issue with D&D subclasses actually, like they'd be great if X component wasn't baked into the power of the class.
 

More than in theory, that's what is happening under the hood.

I think the Monk would be improved if they surfaced that more and made it tge selling point, and cut the overt Orientalism.
Honestly they just need to stop Monks being "Monks", make them a Martial Artist in general (loads of people have suggestions for a name), with Monk as a subclass, delete most of the baseline abilities (so the design-space can be used for subclass abilities, and so "1970s Orientalist take on a SHAOLIN MONK!!!!!!!!" isn't at the heart of the class in 20-effin-22), and rename Ki points (also to cut Orientalism and specificity), and you've got the class we need right there, I suspect.

It's not like they're a wildly popular and iconic class, because they really, really are not.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
Honestly they just need to stop Monks being "Monks", make them a Martial Artist in general (loads of people have suggestions for a name), with Monk as a subclass, delete most of the baseline abilities (so the design-space can be used for subclass abilities, and so "1970s Orientalist take on a SHAOLIN MONK!!!!!!!!" isn't at the heart of the class in 20-effin-22), and rename Ki points (also to cut Orientalism and specificity), and you've got the class we need right there, I suspect.

It's not like they're a wildly popular and iconic class, because they really, really are not.
Don't even make Monk a Subclass, shuffle Monasticism to a Background where it belongs: let Clerics or Paladins be Monks, not just Martial Artists.

Just make Ki into the Spell Slots they are mathematically, make it clear in chart form that they are the Half-Caster form of the Warlock.
 

DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
A Fantasy Kitchen Sink like all of D&D?
Okay, don't take my point seriously. Just wait for WotC to decide to add a completely new class to baseline D&D whose only thing notable about it is "unarmored half-caster". Best of luck with that! Let us know how it works out for you.
 

Vaalingrade

Legend
Okay, don't take my point seriously. Just wait for WotC to decide to add a completely new class to baseline D&D whose only thing notable about it is "unarmored half-caster". Best of luck with that! Let us know how it works out for you.
WotC probably isn't going to make a new class for 5e again. We're going to get half-baked subclasses from here on out. Quality player-facing stuff apparently isn't part of the plan.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
WotC probably isn't going to make a new class for 5e again. We're going to get half-baked subclasses from here on out. Quality player-facing stuff apparently isn't part of the plan.
I mean, I'd say they turned to quality away from quantity some time ago, yes.
 

More than in theory, that's what is happening under the hood.

I think the Monk would be improved if they surfaced that more and made it tge selling point, and cut the overt Orientalism.
I may use this information to make a new class... one that doesn't have the monk stuff but has more psychic stuff... thank you
 

That's the thing, it is exacteven with other Half casters.
it has nowhere near the resource pool to qualify nor a sufficient spell list, the eldrich knight has more and they are certainly not half casters.
The long-established "Red Mage" archetype across various Final Fantasy games.

Or hey TVTropes:


The vast majority of them, despite being called "Magic Knights" actually don't wear any significant armour. Very often they don't cast D&D-style spells either. There's dozens of examples there.
well, of course, they do not cast dnd spells as it is not a dnd game, people have joined 5e and find the wizard sufficient for their arcane need despite it casting nothing like a video game mage.
Yeah D&D is weird about that, and it's been a discussed and addressed problem since 2nd edition at the latest.

D&D, for some reason, which I think runs against how most groups want it, wants you to go through various magical weapons, and definitely not start with one, which becomes stronger (Pact of the Blade is closest).

But all the way back to the late '80s, you find a lot of people who would rather get one magic weapon that grows with them, and really says something about their character and so on. This is vastly more common in fiction - the number of heroes who go through multiple magic weapons is vanishingly small compared to the number who have a beloved magical weapon (often bequeathed to them as a child or teen).

And the first major-major attempt to "fix" D&D, Earthdawn (1993), marketed as a major feature the way you bonded with a magical item and it became stronger as you wove more of your spirit into it as you leveled up (sorry for run-on sentence). It's really weird that D&D doesn't "get" this. That is an actual "miss" of the kind you were discussing.
on this, we are utterly in agreement with as this is just dumb why not have evolving weapons?
To be honest... I think to more likely get what you want, people are asking for the wrong thing.

If the archetype people want is this unarmored, magical, swinging a big weapon type of character... you might be better off asking for the campaign setting that would warrant having this type of class in it. The same way they didn't make an artificer until they released Eberron, and probably won't make a Psion until they release Dark Sun or a Warlord until they release Nentir Vale... this unarmored archetype wouldn't get added just to the base generic game, they'd wait for the right story of the right setting to possibly insert it-- an anime-type setting for which this agile, unarmored weapon-fighting aesthetic could shine.

Get them to create a setting like that, and the archetype would probably have a better chance to follow.
honestly, I want to make an icon, something that takes those basic ideas into something that is just beyond the parts something more, damn I am going to have to learn to write at this point.
WotC probably isn't going to make a new class for 5e again. We're going to get half-baked subclasses from here on out. Quality player-facing stuff apparently isn't part of the plan.
I fundamentally hate that you are near certainly right.
Honestly they just need to stop Monks being "Monks", make them a Martial Artist in general (loads of people have suggestions for a name), with Monk as a subclass, delete most of the baseline abilities (so the design-space can be used for subclass abilities, and so "1970s Orientalist take on a SHAOLIN MONK!!!!!!!!" isn't at the heart of the class in 20-effin-22), and rename Ki points (also to cut Orientalism and specificity), and you've got the class we need right there, I suspect.

It's not like they're a wildly popular and iconic class, because they really, really are not.
on this we could not agree more the monk badly needs a course correction.
 


DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
honestly, I want to make an icon, something that takes those basic ideas into something that is just beyond the parts something more, damn I am going to have to learn to write at this point.
I will always give a thumbs-up to someone who decides to just build that which they want in D&D so they can have it, rather than just passively waiting for WotC to do it for them.
 

DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
I mean with a new edition 2 years away...
They still won't get it. Because if WotC is going to introduce a whole new class to the base game, the Psion, Warlord, and arcane half-caster are probably all ahead of the unarmored half-caster for production.

Anyone who wants this class in the game produced by WotC probably needs a setting made that would have it as an important pillar of the setting design. Otherwise, there are other options on the docket coming first (if at all.)
 

Jer

Legend
Supporter
Honestly they just need to stop Monks being "Monks", make them a Martial Artist in general ...
I wish I could like this one 100 times. Yes please.

Don't even make Monk a Subclass, shuffle Monasticism to a Background where it belongs: let Clerics or Paladins be Monks, not just Martial Artists.
YES! A "monastic" background applied to a "martial" character makes them ... a martial monk.

This really hit me when I actually finally got a chance to play instead of DM and made myself a Fighter with an Acolyte background. He used to live in a monastery and fights - he's a martial monk, but not a Monk.
 

I will always give a thumbs-up to someone who decides to just build that which they want in D&D so they can have it, rather than just passively waiting for WotC to do it for them.
I could homebrew up a subclass to do exactly what I want - I probably will - but that doesn’t mean I’ll ever get to play it. I wouldn’t even say it’s likely I’ll ever get to play it. Many dm’s will assume I’m just trying to powergame or have a “no homebrew” policy.
 

They still won't get it. Because if WotC is going to introduce a whole new class to the base game, the Psion, Warlord, and arcane half-caster are probably all ahead of the unarmored half-caster for production.

Anyone who wants this class in the game produced by WotC probably needs a setting made that would have it as an important pillar of the setting design. Otherwise, there are other options on the docket coming first (if at all.)
you assume it is not a compatible fusion with the arcane half caster anyway as they are still trying to make it less paladin and less ranger.
 






An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top