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

[Paul Farquhar]

One thing I noticed about a lot of these that I could think of offhand: they have a cool magic weapon. That’s something the official rules seem resistant to granting. Even Pact if the Blade grants a technically nonmagical weapon, you just receive it via magic.

There are plenty of cool magic weapons allowed by the rules. It's the DM's job to deal them out.

Or play an artificer. You could make a good approximation of an anime character with a battlemaster artificer. I've seen enough anime to know cute pets are a thing.

 

[jmartkdr2]

There are plenty of cool magic weapons allowed by the rules. It's the DM's job to deal them out.

Relying on the dm to opt in to giving you the thing that makes your entire concept possible is asking the player to hope they get to play their concept at some point while everyone else is guaranteed to be able to play their concept from the beginning. As you might guess, many players aren’t satisfied by that.

Or play an artificer. You could make a good approximation of an anime character with a battlemaster artificer. I've seen enough anime to know cute pets are a thing.

Mandatory pets really are a dealbreaker here. It’s way to much to just ignore.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

What do you think the Monk is...?

Ki points are just the Spellpoint variant from the DMG, mathematically, based on a Short Rest. If you triple the Ki point total by Level, and reverse the math to get Spell Slots, Monks have the same progression of Slots as Paladins, Rangers, and Artificers.

Ki abilities are mathematically just Spells.

so in theory.... ki points could be a half caster warlock?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Ginormous sword

500 gp

2d8 slashing

30 lbs

Two-Handed, Finesse

Sorted. High dex, good AC without wearing full plate. Or just rule that a futuristic Shoulder pad gives as much protection as medieval full plate. It's not like armour matters much in 5e anyway. In our current party the wizard has the highest AC.

Materia = material component.

I mean, I wish D&D official stuff worked that way, I have to admit. For a brief while in 3.XE it kind of did.

 

[Vaalingrade]

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.

A Fantasy Kitchen Sink like all of D&D?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Mandatory pets really are a dealbreaker here. It’s way to much to just ignore.

Not even a kitty backpack?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I mean, I wish D&D official stuff worked that way, I have to admit. For a brief while in 3.XE it kind of did.

Do it as setting specific stuff if you wanted to do a jrpg campaign. You could give everyone a limit break ability as well.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Mandatory pets really are a dealbreaker here. It’s way to much to just ignore.

Now that I know about them, mandatory pets are non-negotiable.

In fact, the game is not call Mandatory Kitties.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Do it as setting specific stuff if you wanted to do a jrpg campaign. You could give everyone a limit break ability as well.

As an individual DM, sure, that works, but my point is there's a broad desire among players (I would assert, without hard evidence, I admit) for an archetype, which 5E does not currently support, but which D&D has, previously, supported (and which Pathfinder supports, albeit imperfectly - I suspect 2E does a better job, I haven't checked though). As @jmartkdr2 pointed out, 5E has sort of danced around it, making hyperspecific stuff that isn't quite right, rather than going for it.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Now that I know about them, mandatory pets are non-negotiable.

In fact, the game is not call Mandatory Kitties.

Technically, the pet isn't mandatory. It says you can make one, not that you must make one.