# Should the PHB have an arcane half caster?



## Frozen_Heart (Dec 20, 2022)

So new edition... and once again, not a single arcane half caster class to act as a paladin/ranger counterpart. Doesn't matter if you prefer artificer or swordmage, neither makes it in.

The entire archetype has been strangely ignored in 5e, with artificer having only 4 subclasses and banned by many DM's. While a swordmage class never even made it in, with a large proportion of the playerbase actively against having one at all.

Should an arcane half caster have priority over one of the PHB classes next edition? Or should it come later on?


----------



## CreamCloud0 (Dec 20, 2022)

i just find it odd that there's one specific class that's left out of the PHB when all the others make it in, especially when as you point out the primal and divine half casters are in there.


----------



## Frozen_Heart (Dec 20, 2022)

CreamCloud0 said:


> i just find it odd that there's one specific class that's left out of the PHB when all the others make it in, especially when as you point out the primal and divine half casters are in there.



The only reason I can see is that maybe they want an exact copy of the 2014 PHB classes... despite that selection being a bit awful.

No arcane half caster and no support martial. And yet the wizard clone gets in somehow.


----------



## schneeland (Dec 20, 2022)

Assuming that this is something like the Elf class in B/X, then yes, it should be added. Warlock could go (to a non-PHB splatbook) to make room.


----------



## Clint_L (Dec 20, 2022)

It's an update of the 2014 PHB so it'll be the same classes. The only question is whether they add a new class, which is unlikely, and they've already stated that artificers are recently released enough that they don't need an update.

There are quite a few sub-classes that have a similar vibe to what you are describing - Arcane Trickster, Eldritch Knight, Hexblade Warlock, etc., not to mention Artificers in general. WotC has been very reluctant to add new classes - one in 8 years, so far. So I'm pessimistic that they will add another full class any time soon.

Edit: I certainly wouldn't support removing any classes from the updated PHB. That would be a kick in the teeth to a lot of players.


----------



## CreamCloud0 (Dec 20, 2022)

Clint_L said:


> There are quite a few sub-classes that have a similar vibe to what you are describing - Arcane Trickster, Eldritch Knight, Hexblade Warlock, etc., not to mention Artificers in general. WotC has been very reluctant to add new classes - one in 8 years, so far. So I'm pessimistic that they will add another full class any time soon.



i'll repeat what i said in the current swordmage thread, better a single class specifically designed to be an arcane gish rather than using subclasses to force non-gish-apropriate classes into being one.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Dec 20, 2022)

I think it's time to leave behind the 'half caster' concept and just do a better job with spell lists.

Except it looks like we're going to be doing a worse job with spellists so...


----------



## Frozen_Heart (Dec 20, 2022)

CreamCloud0 said:


> i'll repeat what i said in the current swordmage thread, better a single class specifically designed to be an arcane gish rather than using subclasses to force non-gish-apropriate classes into being one.



Yeah I'm desperate to not have a repeat of 5e. I'd prefer to kill off the bladesinger, eldritch knight, and hexblade in order to get an actual dedicated class for it.


----------



## Frozen_Heart (Dec 20, 2022)

Vaalingrade said:


> I think it's time to leave behind the 'half caster' concept and just do a better job with spell lists.
> 
> Except it looks like we're going to be doing a worse job with spellists so...



How come you dislike the entire concept of half casters?

They're personally my favourite type of class. You get to be a caster without all the cheesy campaign destroying overpowered spells, while also working that magic into other mechanics.

Edit: But yeah, the ODD spell lists are looking awful already. Bard basically being a wizard with a guitar.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles (Dec 20, 2022)

The choice is pretty simple:
Take a class already in the PHB, make it an arcane half-caster.

I'd go either with Warlock or Bard, myself. 

Warlock doesnt gain much from their ''full'' spellcasting anyways. Remove ''mystic arcanum'', keep them at 2 slots per SR if need be and give them more Invocations. Keep them either as a CHA-caster or move them to INT-casting.

The sorcerer could be a good solution too, since them being full spellcasters dont help in differentiating them from other full spellcaster. Change them to half-casters with special defenses and attacks based on their origin. Having scales and at-will breath weapon, or blinking effect and at-will chaos bolt could be awesome and way more than yet another caster who can cast Earthquake!


----------



## Vaalingrade (Dec 20, 2022)

Frozen_Heart said:


> How come you dislike the entire concept of half casters?
> 
> They're personally my favourite type of class. You get to be a caster without all the cheesy campaign destroying overpowered spells, while also working that magic into other mechanics.
> 
> Edit: But yeah, the ODD spell lists are looking awful already. Bard basically being a wizard with a guitar.



If half casters was the only kind of caster, it'd be fine.

But trying to play a half caster, who gets spells so late in the game that they're meaningless because there's another class that's just plain better at what you're trying to do? Not for me.

I still remember the 3e Bard getting Shadow Evocation, Dominate, etc ten thousand years after the Wizard got it. And that was my favorite class, just not for any of the spellcasting.


----------



## MoonSong (Dec 20, 2022)

Frozen_Heart said:


> And yet the wizard clone gets in somehow.



Not a wizard clone, at least not yet.


----------



## Frozen_Heart (Dec 20, 2022)

Tales and Chronicles said:


> The choice is pretty simple:
> Take a class already in the PHB, make it an arcane half-caster.
> 
> I'd go either with Warlock or Bard, myself.
> ...



Sorcerer was kind of a half caster in the initial 5e playtest. Just using will points rather than spell slots.

People complained so we got a wizard clone instead.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles (Dec 20, 2022)

Frozen_Heart said:


> People complained so we got a wizard clone instead.



That's a think WotC should learn: you dont design to please people who dont want it, you design for those who are actually interested in seeing the final results! 

But its D&D, the tradition argument will always win sadly.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Dec 20, 2022)

And now 5.5e is going to be 'Oops, all Wizard clones!'


----------



## Tales and Chronicles (Dec 20, 2022)

Vaalingrade said:


> And now 5.5e is going to be 'Oops, all Wizard clones!'



As we've seen with the species, I think that there wont be much cases where your character use no spells.

I wont panic or throw hot takes, but as someone who dont care much for magic as presented in D&D, if all classes have feature referencing spells, I think I'll move out to another system.


----------



## Shiroiken (Dec 20, 2022)

I wouldn't mind having one, but we know it won't happen in the PHB. Best we can hope for is being added in the first supplement.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Dec 20, 2022)

Tales and Chronicles said:


> As we've seen with the species, I think that there wont be much cases where your character use no spells.
> 
> I wont panic or throw hot takes, but as someone who dont care much for magic as presented in D&D, if all classes have feature referencing spells, I think I'll move out to another system.



I'm more focused on all the onerous spell prep being foisted on the good classes.


----------



## Frozen_Heart (Dec 20, 2022)

I've always felt Bard was more 'occult' themed than arcane, to put it in Pathfinder language. I do wish Bard was an 'occult' half caster though.

The one dnd Bard is literally just looking like wizard clone version 2. After the sorcerer being wizard clone version 1.

The playtest sorcerer is another good arcane half caster option. So there are three choices for WotC to ignore!


----------



## CreamCloud0 (Dec 20, 2022)

Tales and Chronicles said:


> The choice is pretty simple:
> Take a class already in the PHB, make it an arcane half-caster.
> 
> I'd go either with Warlock or Bard, myself.
> ...



i like sorcerer and warlock as they are right now as full casters, i mean sorcerer could get some extra abilities to define it but not in that way, i would like bard as a half caster but not as *the* arcane half caster, being a full caster is a little much for a jack of all trades class imo,


----------



## Frozen_Heart (Dec 20, 2022)

CreamCloud0 said:


> i like sorcerer and warlock as they are right now as full casters, i mean sorcerer could get some extra abilities to define it but not in that way, i would like bard as a half caster but not as *the* arcane half caster, being a full caster is a little much for a jack of all trades class imo,



I did like the 'become the monster' theme with the playtest sorcerer. 5e doesn't have anything like that really.

Weirdly it kind of shares that theme with the Blood Hunter homebrew class. Despite the implementation being completely different.


----------



## OB1 (Dec 20, 2022)

Well, the Artificer will be compatible with One, so there is already a half-caster not in the PHB.

That said, I think the Sorcerer could be converted to a half-caster to really carve out it's own niche as an Arcane/Expert that relies much more heavily on meta-magic, or the Warlock could be reimagined as a half-caster Arcane/Priest (leaving Arcane/Warrior to the Artificer).


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 20, 2022)

It depends... If we are talking an arcane gish _class_... sure.  Things change when we start talking about an arcane gish fractional caster subtype built on top of a full caster or full martial base class that's going to force the class to make "well we can't built this because $gishArchetype" down the line for the full martial or full caster base class it's attached to.


----------



## CreamCloud0 (Dec 20, 2022)

Although I’ve been saying ‘make a gish class dont try to force another to be it’ with a few new infusions and subclass i do think artificer could make a good swordmage


----------



## Minigiant (Dec 21, 2022)

Put it in the DMG


----------



## Kobold Stew (Dec 21, 2022)

Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster should be arcane half-casters -- for me that would be ideal.


----------



## Henadic Theologian (Dec 21, 2022)

Yes and it should be the Artificer for practical reasons.


----------



## MechaTarrasque (Dec 21, 2022)

The truth is that no one thinks the tome or the familiar adds a lot of offense to the warlock (they are both really utility features), but people keep thinking the blade somehow does.  The best thing for WotC to do is to split the bladelock off the warlock (and they already have a name, the Hexblade), and make it so that you can keep up with the paladin (with a bunch of melee-enhancing invocations) and call it victory.  Put it in Modron #45768's Manifesto of Character Options along with the warden as the 4th priest (prymal paladin), the artificer (expert), and whatever they decide the 4th warrior will be.


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 21, 2022)

MechaTarrasque said:


> The truth is that no one thinks the tome or the familiar adds a lot of offense to the warlock (they are both really utility features), but people keep thinking the blade somehow does.  The best thing for WotC to do is to split the bladelock off the warlock (and they already have a name, the Hexblade), and make it so that you can keep up with the paladin (with a bunch of melee-enhancing invocations) and call it victory.  Put it in Modron #45768's Manifesto of Character Options along with the warden as the 4th priest (prymal paladin), the artificer (expert), and whatever they decide the 4th warrior will be.



The trouble with chain is the flying intelligent at will invis proxy.  5e got rid of the reasons why using familiars for anything risky scary AF, it no longer has counterbalance for things like that.


----------



## Yaarel (Dec 21, 2022)

The 4e-style Swordmage needs to be a fullcaster that specializes in Melee Range spells, and is comfortable in melee combat. All attacks are spell attacks. Cantrips are great. A high slot spell like Foresight is also great.

At the same time, I want an Arcane halfcaster in the Players Handbook. Surely, the Artificer can be this.


----------



## Yaarel (Dec 21, 2022)

Kobold Stew said:


> Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster should be arcane half-casters -- for me that would be ideal.



Do you think both Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster could work as Artificer subclasses?


----------



## MechaTarrasque (Dec 21, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> The trouble with chain is the flying intelligent at will invis proxy.  5e got rid of the reasons why using familiars for anything risky scary AF, it no longer has counterbalance for things like that.



That may be true, but no one expects the imp to take out an adult dragon on the warlock's behalf (heck, it isn't even a good meat shield), and the 'lock bragging about how he got shillelagh from his tome won't get very far using it on a frost giant.  No one is denying the good utility value, but there is a limited window where they directly contribute significant damage.  The sword is really the same.  About the time you can get 3 beams out of EB, it is time to put the sword away unless you need to pretend you aren't a magic user by stabbing something (especially if you can look like someone else when you do it)--good luck CSI: Neverwinter finding that sword.

I totally understand why that is a bummer, and a solution is the build something like a warlock designed so you can contribute by stabbing without having to multiclass or beg the DM for a "just under an artifact" weapon you can make into your pact weapon.  Alternatively, you could throw in something so that when you successfully stab something, you get recharge a spell slot, but then you would need to do it for the pet and the tome too.  And if you thought the pet was bad now.....


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 21, 2022)

MechaTarrasque said:


> That may be true, but no one expects the imp to take out an adult dragon on the warlock's behalf (heck, it isn't even a good meat shield), and the 'lock bragging about how he got shillelagh from his tome won't get very far using it on a frost giant.  No one is denying the good utility value, but there is a limited window where they directly contribute significant damage.  The sword is really the same.  About the time you can get 3 beams out of EB, it is time to put the sword away unless you need to pretend you aren't a magic user by stabbing something (especially if you can look like someone else when you do it)--good luck CSI: Neverwinter finding that sword.
> 
> I totally understand why that is a bummer, and a solution is the build something like a warlock designed so you can contribute by stabbing without having to multiclass or beg the DM for a "just under an artifact" weapon you can make into your pact weapon.  Alternatively, you could throw in something so that when you successfully stab something, you get recharge a spell slot, but then you would need to do it for the pet and the tome too.  And if you thought the pet was bad now.....



You are describing the warlock as if 1d10+cha plus knockback at 120ft with equal or better multiattack scaling than fighter is barely limping along & only allowed in the group out of pity. The invisible flying intelligent imp with opposable thumbs poses noncombat problems.


----------



## Clint_L (Dec 21, 2022)

Tales and Chronicles said:


> The choice is pretty simple:
> Take a class already in the PHB, make it an arcane half-caster.
> 
> I'd go either with Warlock or Bard, myself.
> ...



But that's not what OneD&D is. OneD&D is still 5e, just updated. There aren't going to be radical redesigns of existing classes because it has to be backwards compatible, including with characters that people are already playing. They aren't going to turn sorcerers into a Gish class.

WotC has been very clear about that. So if there is any hope for another half-caster class, besides the artificer, then it would have to be in another supplement.


----------



## Horwath (Dec 21, 2022)

Bard, Druid, Warlock, Sorcerer should be 2/3rd casters.

That leaves only cleric and wizard as "full" casters

Eldritch knight/arcane trickster should be removed.

In place of 1/3rd spellcasters there should be one arcane/fighterish 1/2 caster class, Duskblade/swordmage and one skilled based sneaky 1/2 caster class; arcane trickster/beguiler/shadowmage.


----------



## Frozen_Heart (Dec 21, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> Do you think both Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster could work as Artificer subclasses?



Arcane trickster as an artificer subclass focused on thieves tools and mage hand shenanigans. Eldritch Knight as a subclass of a swordmage class. Along with bladesinger and hexblade.

Either that or make a weapons focused artificer subclass. Something about crafting your own weapon to empower it with lots of different effects on combat.


----------



## Yaarel (Dec 21, 2022)

Frozen_Heart said:


> Arcane trickster as an artificer subclass focused on thieves tools and mage hand shenanigans. Eldritch Knight as a subclass of a swordmage class. Along with bladesinger and hexblade.
> 
> Either that or make a weapons focused artificer subclass. Something about crafting your own weapon to empower it with lots of different effects on combat.



I assume Hexblade, Bladesinger, Swordmage, and Eldritch Knight are all a fullcaster class? It is ok if it uses Warlock slots, which I consider a fullcaster because of the Arcanums at high levels. If so, I am fine with that.

Meanwhile the Artificer is a halfcaster.


----------



## Frozen_Heart (Dec 21, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> I assume Hexblade, Bladesinger, Swordmage, and Eldritch Knight are all a fullcaster class? It is ok if it uses Warlock slots, which I consider a fullcaster because of the Arcanums at high levels. If so, I am fine with that.
> 
> Meanwhile the Artificer is a halfcaster.



I've always preferred the idea of the swordmage type class being a half caster. I've never liked a full caster also being able to walk into the martials area of expertise and do well there as well.

Additionally we already have hordes of full casters (5 or 6 depending on if warlock counts). While martials and half caster niches are not covered nearly as thoroughly.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles (Dec 21, 2022)

Clint_L said:


> But that's not what OneD&D is. OneD&D is still 5e, just updated. There aren't going to be radical redesigns of existing classes because it has to be backwards compatible, including with characters that people are already playing. They aren't going to turn sorcerers into a Gish class.
> 
> WotC has been very clear about that. So if there is any hope for another half-caster class, besides the artificer, then it would have to be in another supplement.



We're just spit balling here. The title says ''should'', not ''will''. 

I know the change will be minimal and there will be no half arcane caster in the new PHB.

For some of us, discussing and designing what could have been and how things could be is part of the fun, even if it goes nowhere.


----------



## Mephista (Dec 21, 2022)

Isn't Artificer the arcane gish half-caster class?  They already said that's not going into the PHB


----------



## Frozen_Heart (Dec 21, 2022)

Mephista said:


> Isn't Artificer the arcane gish half-caster class?  They already said that's not going into the PHB



It's the only one in 5e yeah.

And it's not being updated to go into ODD. WotC barely remembered it existed in 5e either. Only 4 subclasses.


----------



## Mephista (Dec 21, 2022)

Frozen_Heart said:


> It's the only one in 5e yeah.
> 
> And it's not being updated to go into ODD. WotC barely remembered it existed in 5e either. Only 4 subclasses.



Its not being updated into the PHB CORE.  Considering how much they've been talking about it in the UA pdfs, I somehow doubt that qualifies as "barely remembers."  Post Tasha's, we've had, what, three subclasses released in total? Across all classes?

EDIT - sorry, five total subclasses post-Tasha.  Two in Fizben (ranger, monk), two in Shadowfell (warlock, bard) and one in Dragonlance (sorcerer).


----------



## Clint_L (Dec 21, 2022)

Frozen_Heart said:


> It's the only one in 5e yeah.
> 
> And it's not being updated to go into ODD. WotC barely remembered it existed in 5e either. Only 4 subclasses.



Tasha's came out barely a year ago. It doesn't really need an update, does it?


----------



## MoonSong (Dec 21, 2022)

Clint_L said:


> Tasha's came out barely a year ago. It doesn't really need an update, does it?



Tasha's came two years ago.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Dec 21, 2022)

schneeland said:


> Assuming that this is something like the Elf class in B/X, then yes, it should be added. Warlock could go (to a non-PHB splatbook) to make room.



Why take out literally the single most popular casting class, and the most distinctive (and IMO best) to make room for a box filling excercise?


CreamCloud0 said:


> i'll repeat what i said in the current swordmage thread, better a single class specifically designed to be an arcane gish rather than using subclasses to force non-gish-apropriate classes into being one.



I didn't take part in that one I think - but if I had I'd have said that we can do that when _and only when_ we get agreement about how a "gish" should work among most people who want to play one. Because as things stand 75% of people will be disappointed by the subclass because they preferred their old version (or actually wanted to play a sword-wielding wizard) and we'll get to the XKCD standards issue.





And I'm very much in the "Yes the PHB should. It's called the Artificer" camp.


----------



## Frozen_Heart (Dec 21, 2022)

Neonchameleon said:


> Why take out literally the single most popular casting class, and the most distinctive (and IMO best) to make room for a box filling excercise?



Yeah picking the warlock out of all the classes to kick from the PHB seems odd. It's by far the most distinctive and unique full caster (both for mechanics and for 'class story').

(I'd personally pick the wizard clone to axe if I had to kick out a PHB class)


----------



## MoonSong (Dec 21, 2022)

Frozen_Heart said:


> (I'd personally pick the wizard clone to axe if I had to kick out a PHB class)



I'd cut the boring bookworm instead.


----------



## schneeland (Dec 21, 2022)

Neonchameleon said:


> Why take out literally the single most popular casting class, and the most distinctive (and IMO best) to make room for a box filling excercise?



It's mostly a thing of personal taste - it's odd (in the sense of sticking out) mechanics are exactly the reason why I would relegate it from the PHB to a supplement. And the elf as part fighter, part mage is with D&D long enough that I don't consider it simply a box-filling exercise.
That being said, the 5e Sorcerer feels useless enough that it, too, could be removed from the PHB.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Dec 21, 2022)

MoonSong said:


> I'd cut the boring bookworm instead.



I wouldn't _cut_ it. I'd make it a sorcerer subclass with its subclass gimmick being Int-based and prepared casting.


----------



## Corinnguard (Dec 21, 2022)

If WoTC were to include an arcane half-caster into it's next PHB, it ought to be like Laser Llama's Magus class on GM Binder. The Magus Class by laserllama    Then all of the arcane subclasses (the Eldritch Knight, the Bladesinger, etc.) currently available in 5e would be this class' subclasses.


----------



## Mephista (Dec 22, 2022)

Arcane Gish: the Story

Arcane Gish Fans:  We want a gish!
WotC:  Hey, check out this Eldritch Knight in the core!  Or the Blade warlock!
AGF: No! that's not what we want! Not enough spells to do anything on their own!
WotC:  Okay, okay... Umm... Here's Hexblade and Bladesinger! 
AGF:  NO.  We want a half caster, INT based, with the option for heavy armor to go with their weapons.
WotC: We gotcha fam.  We got this!
_Releases Artificer_
AGF:  Nuuuuuuuuu!!!!!


----------



## Vaalingrade (Dec 22, 2022)

Releases Artificer and barely supports it.


----------



## Yaarel (Dec 22, 2022)

Hypothetically, a Paladin subclass can have the Arcane power source.

Compare how the Sorcerer has the Divine Soul subclass using the Divine power source.



Paladin might have been the more helpful class for the Eldritch Knight and Psi Warrior.


----------



## Frozen_Heart (Dec 22, 2022)

Vaalingrade said:


> Releases Artificer and barely supports it.



An artificer subclass could probably have worked best as a swordmage stand in.

Something focused around creating a weapon, and then channelling strikes through it like arcane archer does with shots. Varied types of elemental damage with status riders.


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Jan 2, 2023)

Frozen_Heart said:


> So new edition... and once again, not a single arcane half caster class to act as a paladin/ranger counterpart. Doesn't matter if you prefer artificer or swordmage, neither makes it in.
> 
> The entire archetype has been strangely ignored in 5e, with artificer having only 4 subclasses and banned by many DM's. While a swordmage class never even made it in, with a large proportion of the playerbase actively against having one at all.
> 
> Should an arcane half caster have priority over one of the PHB classes next edition? Or should it come later on?



"Arcane Half-caster" covers a multitude of concepts. Unless this is to be purely a form-filling exercise, something more specific may me needed.


Frozen_Heart said:


> An artificer subclass could probably have worked best as a swordmage stand in.
> 
> Something focused around creating a weapon, and then channelling strikes through it like arcane archer does with shots. Varied types of elemental damage with status riders.



This was the start of a rough draft I did of the Swordmage as an Artificer subclass: D&D 5E - Giving the arcane gish an identity.


----------



## Aldarc (Jan 2, 2023)

This thread almost makes me feel that D&D has too many _full_ casters.


----------



## Shades of Eternity (Jan 2, 2023)

That's because whenever martial classes get nice things, certain types of gamers start twitching and crying unrealistic.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Jan 2, 2023)

It's not up to WotC to make the Artificer the "Arcane half-caster" everyone is clamoring for by releasing more stuff for it... it's up to all the players out there to actually play the class enough to warrant it _becoming seen_ as the "arcane half-caster".

If WotC makes this class to fill in the box like people want but no one _treats_ it like it is... why would WotC ever bother making another one?  (General) you have already crapped on the EK, Valor/Sword Bard, Blood Hunter, Bladesinger, Hexblade and now the Artificer.  (General) you are basically proving to WotC that you as a collective group don't actually know what you want for this so-called Gish-- and until (general) get your stuff together and make a collective choice on what you want... WotC will just continue to only do what they want.

There are dozens of Third Party Gish classes made out there.  Which ones are you playing?  Which ones are gaining traction in the marketplace?  Which ones' emphasis and style do you want WotC to follow suit on?  Do you know?  Does anyone?  If none of (general) you can point to one Gish class out there and say to WotC "This is what we want!"... how will WotC ever just "guess right" and release _another_ class or subclass in the way you want it?

See: Warlord, Psion


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jan 2, 2023)

I chose yes, for the lack of the option: indifferent.
Ibwould not rebel and I would not be overly happy, depending on what has to make space for it and depending on which arcane half caster is in.

As much as I like the artificer, he does not fit the default setting too well. Maybe the alchemist and some 3 new subclasses. I could see:

inventor (gnome)
factotum
redmage 

I don't particularily like the sword mage concept and I would not want it in my games.

But as I said. People seem to like them, so they can have fun with it.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jan 2, 2023)

Edit, because off topic.


----------



## Warpiglet-7 (Jan 2, 2023)

So how much would this truly differ from multiclassing? 

Paladins have features like smite and their aura.  They have smite spells.

I am not a king rhetorically but rather wondering what it would so that multiclassing does not.


----------



## Frozen_Heart (Jan 2, 2023)

DEFCON 1 said:


> There are dozens of Third Party Gish classes made out there.  Which ones are you playing?  Which ones are gaining traction in the marketplace?  Which ones' emphasis and style do you want WotC to follow suit on?  Do you know?  Does anyone?  If none of (general) you can point to one Gish class out there and say to WotC "This is what we want!"... how will WotC ever just "guess right" and release _another_ class or subclass in the way you want it?
> 
> See: Warlord, Psion



It doesn't help that every single edition of DnD and Pathfinder has a completely different gish class, rather than sticking with anything consistent.

If they'd stuck with 'bladesinger' in every edition since it came in back in ADnD, maybe it would have established itself as a class. But instead it was bladesinger, then eldritch knight, then duskblade, then magus, then swordmage. Then bladesinger and eldritch knight were subclasses.

Is it really any surprise that there is no consistent vision of the class?

There is no consistent view of Ranger either. Everyone wants something different from the class. From it's always been called 'ranger', so there is at least some overarching identity for it. People can argue the details from there.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 2, 2023)

Frozen_Heart said:


> So new edition... and once again, not a single arcane half caster class to act as a paladin/ranger counterpart. Doesn't matter if you prefer artificer or swordmage, neither makes it in.
> 
> The entire archetype has been strangely ignored in 5e, with artificer having only 4 subclasses and banned by many DM's. While a swordmage class never even made it in, with a large proportion of the playerbase actively against having one at all.
> 
> Should an arcane half caster have priority over one of the PHB classes next edition? Or should it come later on?



I think we should have either (prefreble both) a combat half arcane and a skill based half arcane... a swordmage (or magus or eldritch knight, or gish) and an artificer sounds good to me.


----------



## Warpiglet-7 (Jan 2, 2023)

The artificer is cool and all and fits a lot of asks but I would prefer a Gish that’s got different flavor…


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Jan 2, 2023)

Yes, there should be an arcane half-caster. The bard.


----------



## Warpiglet-7 (Jan 2, 2023)

Crimson Longinus said:


> Yes, there should be an arcane half-caster. The bard.



I have never played one as I disliked the flavor.  I thought about taking magic initiate so I could take blade cantrips and something other than vis mockery.  

Again the flavor will be off for what some are asking for here.  

I am going to play a whispers bard with blade cantrip or perhaps two weapons…I am flexible but some really want different flavor.


----------



## Frozen_Heart (Jan 2, 2023)

Cap'n Kobold said:


> "Arcane Half-caster" covers a multitude of concepts. Unless this is to be purely a form-filling exercise, something more specific may me needed.



I mean 5e has an arcane half caster with an identity. It's called the artificer.

And (at least initially) it's not making the jump to 1dnd. We don't even know if it will ever get ported across.


----------



## Frozen_Heart (Jan 2, 2023)

Crimson Longinus said:


> Yes, there should be an arcane half-caster. The bard.



Though I've never thought of the Bard as arcane (more occult), I totally think it should be a half caster.

It seems like they forgot the entire 'jack of all trades' thing and turned it into a wizard with a guitar.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Jan 2, 2023)

Frozen_Heart said:


> I mean 5e has an arcane half caster with an identity. It's called the artificer.
> 
> And (at least initially) it's not making the jump to 1dnd. We don't even know if it will ever get ported across.



It doesn't need to.  The class changes for 1D&D are happening because of 8 years of global post-release playtesting that have revealed issues either mechanically or narratively that WotC wants to finally errata or change.  But the Artificer has not been around long enough for there to be a clarion call to "fix" it yet.

Grante, it probably will happen at some point down the road if enough people continue to play Artificers and find any additional issues with it... but for now it will be fine to use with the 2024 book-- right up until the time WotC decides to re-introduce cross-class subclasses in a splatbook... and the Artificer stans demand at barest minimum a level re-working so that the Artificer now gets its subclass features at the same levels all the 2024 classes do.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jan 2, 2023)

Crimson Longinus said:


> Yes, there should be an arcane half-caster. The bard.




Most probably no. But I could imagine a bard that fits.
I also would like to rename the current bard into dilletant. Bard does not really fit the bill. That would lwave the bard or skald as an arcane half caster. Or the druidic bard could be the primal half caster, leaving eoom for the ranger to be more martial oriented.


----------



## Frozen_Heart (Jan 2, 2023)

DEFCON 1 said:


> It doesn't need to.  The class changes for 1D&D are happening because of 8 years of global post-release playtesting that have revealed issues either mechanically or narratively that WotC wants to finally errata or change.  But the Artificer has not been around long enough for there to be a clarion call to "fix" it yet.
> 
> Grante, it probably will happen at some point down the road if enough people continue to play Artificers and find any additional issues with it... but for now it will be fine to use with the 2024 book-- right up until the time WotC decides to re-introduce cross-class subclasses in a splatbook... and the Artificer stans demand at barest minimum a level re-working so that the Artificer now gets its subclass features at the same levels all the 2024 classes do.



I'd say the main 'fix' artificer needs is getting more subclasses. The class feels half abandoned by wotc.


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 2, 2023)

Why does it have to be in the PHB? Because of symmetry or some orderliness which irritates for it's absence because it feels like a placeholder was not filled? Because I think an arcane half-caster might be fun but I don't see why it would have to be in the core book aside from those types of reasons. Which to me is a bad reason for it to be there.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Jan 3, 2023)

Crimson Longinus said:


> Yes, there should be an arcane half-caster. The bard.



People always propose to diminish the bard by demoting them back to half-caster, but never propose what the other half gets to be. Half casters need something to make up for a disappointing spell progression.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 3, 2023)

Frozen_Heart said:


> Yeah I'm desperate to not have a repeat of 5e. I'd prefer to kill off the bladesinger, eldritch knight, and hexblade in order to get an actual dedicated class for it.



I’d rather just have both.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 3, 2023)

Mistwell said:


> Why does it have to be in the PHB? Because of symmetry or some orderliness which irritates for its absence because it feels like a placeholder was not filled? Because I think an arcane half-caster might be fun but I don't see why it would have to be in the core book aside from those types of reasons. Which to me is a bad reason for it to be there.



Phb classes get support without needing to be reprinted.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 3, 2023)

MechaTarrasque said:


> That may be true, but no one expects the imp to take out an adult dragon on the warlock's behalf (heck, it isn't even a good meat shield), and the 'lock bragging about how he got shillelagh from his tome won't get very far using it on a frost giant.  No one is denying the good utility value, but there is a limited window where they directly contribute significant damage.  The sword is really the same.  About the time you can get 3 beams out of EB, it is time to put the sword away unless you need to pretend you aren't a magic user by stabbing something (especially if you can look like someone else when you do it)--good luck CSI: Neverwinter finding that sword.
> 
> I totally understand why that is a bummer, and a solution is the build something like a warlock designed so you can contribute by stabbing without having to multiclass or beg the DM for a "just under an artifact" weapon you can make into your pact weapon.  Alternatively, you could throw in something so that when you successfully stab something, you get recharge a spell slot, but then you would need to do it for the pet and the tome too.  And if you thought the pet was bad now.....



All they have to do, seriously just this one thing, is make pact of the blade turn Eldritch blast into a melee attack using your pact weapon as a Spellcasting focus, and taking range/reach and any special properties from the pact weapon. That’s it. 

Then blade invocations could make you tougher and able to do cool things, rather than just keep up with any actual warrior in weapon attacks by spending all of your invocations on your pact boon.


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 3, 2023)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Phb classes get support without needing to be reprinted.



Right. And? Why does that mean an arcane half-caster needs to be in the core book? It's not as iconic as the others, and the core book is supposed to be for the iconic classes. So why, other than the sense of orderliness I mentioned, should a non-iconic half-caster arcane class be in the core book?


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 3, 2023)

Mistwell said:


> Right. And? Why does that mean an arcane half-caster needs to be in the core book? It's not as iconic as the others, and the core book is supposed to be for the iconic classes. So why, other than the sense of orderliness I mentioned, should a non-iconic half-caster arcane class be in the core book?



So, you’re just gonna dismiss the reason I’ve given out of hand for no remotely legitimate reason, and then ask the same question I already answered. 

Yeah, even if you are _trying_ to operate in good faith, this exchange isn’t going to be worthwhile if that’s your approach. Certainly doesn’t seem like a question you’re asking in order to understand anything.


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 3, 2023)

doctorbadwolf said:


> So, you’re just gonna dismiss the reason I’ve given out of hand for no remotely legitimate reason, and then ask the same question I already answered.
> 
> Yeah, even if you are _trying_ to operate in good faith, this exchange isn’t going to be worthwhile if that’s your approach. Certainly doesn’t seem like a question you’re asking in order to understand anything.



Doc you may have answered other people with a legitimate reason and I didn't see it, but in response to me your reason was not legitimate. Because it gets support without being reprinted isn't a reason to add a class to the PHB in itself. You could say that about anything in the game. It's completely non-unique to the question and says nothing about an arcane half-caster.


----------



## Ashrym (Jan 3, 2023)

Adding an arcane half-caster because there are a divine and primal half-caster is the box filling approach and doesn't demonstrate a need to be done just for being absent.  That seems to be reinforced by comments that are similar to smite spells and abilities, and that looks like getting hung up on a single term that didn't matter in 5e up until spell list changes being proposed.

There are also several ways to combine melee and magic to various degrees including multi-classing into classic builds.  This gets back to too many different people have too many different ideas on what that class would look like.

I do think the artificer should be added to the PHB, however; and the eldritch knight could stand some improvements.  But adding another class or radically altering a class doesn't have a good reason to do so.



Frozen_Heart said:


> I mean 5e has an arcane half caster with an identity. It's called the artificer.
> 
> And (at least initially) it's not making the jump to 1dnd. We don't even know if it will ever get ported across.




We know from the comments given in the UA's mentioning the artificer that the devs are aware of the artificer.  The class is more likely to have at least some information (such as a side bar on how to adapt it) than to have nothing because of those mentions.



Frozen_Heart said:


> Though I've never thought of the Bard as arcane (more occult), I totally think it should be a half caster.
> 
> It seems like they forgot the entire 'jack of all trades' thing and turned it into a wizard with a guitar.




Why do you think bards should be a half-caster?  We've already learned the community response to bard spell casting early in 3.0 and still in 3.5 with improvements when that version of bard massively outclassed rangers and paladins in magical capabilities.  Especially 3.5 with the improvements to bard songs.

I disagree with how you interpret a "jack-of-all-trades".  The concept needs to be adequately skilled in each of those areas to be worth playing instead of restricted in all areas to the point no one wants to play one.  5e did a great job by giving other arcane spellcasters benefits to improve their spellcasting.  That results in being a decent spell-caster but no where near the benefits of metamagic or invocations.  Definitely not the arcane recovery, spell list access, ritual mechanics, spell mastery, or signature spells that wizards enjoy.

A bad caster is not a jack-of-all-trades.  It's  just a bad caster.  The full caster bard that lacks those other enhancements that improve spell casting keeps them relying on skill benefits and inspiration while being subpar compared to other full spellcasters.



Vaalingrade said:


> People always propose to diminish the bard by demoting them back to half-caster, but never propose what the other half gets to be. Half casters need something to make up for a disappointing spell progression.




Bards were never half-casters.  They were full-casters who weren't as fleshed out as other full-casters.  In 2e and 3.x caster level mattered.  Bards progressed in caster level correctly for a full-caster.  Compared to paladins and rangers who gained spells far slower with even lower spell access and with caster level restrictions bards didn't have.  4e used the powers structure (arcane source) so weren't restricted and 5e they continued to use the full structure.

In 2e, the XP advancement tables and bonus XP rules had bards at a higher caster level than other magic-users so they had significant advantages as a full spellcaster.  In 3.x the magical songs and variant spell levels still gave bards near full spellcaster magic even before the PrC's that added more.

Looking at bards when clerics and druids also didn't cast 9th level spells and then comparing them to paladins and rangers as half-casters doesn't stand up to critical reasoning.  Even calling them 2/3's casters is looking at 3e but ignoring other editions, ignoring the magical song contributions, ignoring the caster level rules, ignoring the spells that varied with spell level based on class, and ignoring PrC's that improved spellcasting for bards further.


----------



## DeviousQuail (Jan 3, 2023)

I would like there to be one, whether it's in the PHB or a supplement, so that we can at least have an agreed upon starting point to build from. Artificer fits the bill on a basic level but I've always felt like it was the oddball of the half caster group. Similar imo to how monks and warlocks are oddballs amongst the martials and full casters, respectively. Having something that fits the mold of the ranger or paladin, but with Int instead of Wis or Cha, could make a great home for some old and new subclasses.

I think most, but not all, gish subclasses would be better served on a half caster chassis. Bladesingers, Eldritch Knights, Blade pact Warlocks, Valor Bards, and Sword Bards always felt like they got overshadowed by the full caster progression, underserved by the 1/3 progression, or undermined by melee cantrips. Arcane Archers using spell slots to power their magic arrows is something I'd like to see. It could also make a nice home for new subclasses like Witcher (sad Henry Cavill noises), Chanter and Cipher (Pillars of Eternity), Blue Mage (Final Fantasy), and Dohvakiin (shout, shout, let it all out).


----------



## Vaalingrade (Jan 3, 2023)

Ashrym said:


> Bards were never half-casters.  They were full-casters who weren't as fleshed out as other full-casters.  In 2e and 3.x caster level mattered.  Bards progressed in caster level correctly for a full-caster.  Compared to paladins and rangers who gained spells far slower with even lower spell access and with caster level restrictions bards didn't have.



3e bards still had the penalizing slow spell progression. Even for a spont caster, who were _clearly_ so powerful they needed a stunted spell progression.


----------



## tetrasodium (Jan 3, 2023)

Ashrym said:


> Adding an arcane half-caster because there are a divine and primal half-caster is the box filling approach and doesn't demonstrate a need to be done just for being absent.  That seems to be reinforced by comments that are similar to smite spells and abilities, and that looks like getting hung up on a single term that didn't matter in 5e up until spell list changes being proposed.
> 
> There are also several ways to combine melee and magic to various degrees including multi-classing into classic builds.  This gets back to too many different people have too many different ideas on what that class would look like.
> 
> ...



While citing the 2e exp tables you might want to compare the spell slots available to bars vrs wizards at different levels of experience. You can't compare levlx to level x for the very reason that you cite.  Yes bards got  experience for finding gold, they did not get experience for casting spells.  Wizards got experience for casting spells instead of finding gold. 


Spoiler: bard to wizard spell slots per level




L1: Bard exp needed 0- Wizard Exp needed:0
Bard Slots: * -none-*/hardly the hallmark of a "full caster"
Wizard Slots: 1

L2 Bard exp needed 1,250 - Wizard Exp needed: 2,500
Bard Slots:  1
Wizard Slots: 2

L3 Bard exp needed 2,500- Wizard Exp needed: 5,000
Bard Slots: 2
Wizard Slots: 2/1

L4 Bard exp needed 5,000- Wizard Exp needed: 10,000
Bard Slots: 2/1
Wizard Slots: 3/2

L:5 Bard exp needed 10,000- Wizard Exp needed: 20,000
Bard Slots: 3/1
Wizard Slots: 4/2/1

L6 Bard exp needed 20,000- Wizard Exp needed: 40,000
Bard Slots: 3/2
Wizard Slots: 4/3/2

L7 Bard exp needed 40,000- Wizard Exp needed: 60,000
Bard Slots: 3/2/1
Wizard Slots: 4/3/2/1

L8 Bard exp needed 70,000- Wizard Exp needed: 90.000
Bard Slots: 3/3/1
Wizard Slots: 4/3/3/2

L9 Bard exp needed 110,000- Wizard Exp needed: 135.000
Bard Slots: 3/3/2
Wizard Slots: 4/3/3/2/1

L10 Bard exp needed 160,000- Wizard Exp needed: 250,000
Bard Slots: 3/3/2/1
Wizard Slots: 4/4/3/2/2

L11 Bard exp needed 220,000- Wizard Exp needed: 375,000
Bard Slots: 3/3/3/1
Wizard Slots:4/4/4/3/3

L12 Bard exp needed 440,000- Wizard Exp needed: 750,000
Bard Slots: 3/3/3/2
Wizard Slots: 4/4/4/4/4/1

L13 Bard exp needed 660,000- Wizard Exp needed: 1,125,000
Bard Slots: 3/3/2/1
Wizard Slots: 5/5/5/4/4/2

L14 Bard exp needed 880,000- Wizard Exp needed: 1,5000,000
Bard Slots: 3/3/3/3/1
Wizard Slots: 5/5/5/4/4/2/1

L15 Bard exp needed 1,100,000- Wizard Exp needed: 1,875,000
Bard Slots: 3/3/3/3/1
Wizard Slots: 5/5/5/5/5/2/1

L16 Bard exp needed 1,320,000- Wizard Exp needed: 2,250,000
Bard Slots: 4/3/3/3/2/1
Wizard Slots: 5/5/5/5/5/3/2/1

L17 Bard exp needed 1,540,000- Wizard Exp needed: 2,625,000
Bard Slots: 4/4/3/3/3/1
Wizard Slots: 5/5/5/5/5/3/3/2

L18 Bard exp needed 1,760,000- Wizard Exp needed: 3,000,000
Bard Slots:  4/4/4/3/3/2
Wizard Slots: 5/5/5/5/5/3/3/2/1

L19 Bard exp needed 1,980,000- Wizard Exp needed: 3,375,000
Bard Slots: 4/4/4/4/3/2
Wizard Slots: 5/5/5/5/5/3/3/3/1

L20 Bard exp needed 2,200,000- Wizard Exp needed: 3,750,000
Bard Slots: 4/4/4/4/4/3- Notice they never get above 6th level slots ?...  Again not very indicative of a "full caster"
Wizard Slots:  5/5/5/5/5/4/3/3/2 slots. 




Even if you compare 2e spell slots at  exp N to exp N there's no case for calling bards a "full caster"  20,000 will give you a level 5 wizard with 4/2/*1* spell slots to a level 6 bard with only 3/2 slots.  Then at 250,000 you get a level 10 wizard with  4/4/3/2/*2* slots to a level  11& change bard with 3/3/3/1 spell slots.  Later at 1,875,000 you get a level 15 wizard with 5/5/5/5/5/2/*1* slots to a level 17 bard  with 4/4/3/3/3/1..  Still later at 2,250,000 you get a level 16 wizard with  5/5/5/5/5/3/*2*/*1 *slots & 4 more levels to go in wizard  compared to a maxed out level 20 bard with 4/4/4/4/4/3 who will  never see level 7 or 8 spells.

With 3.x... Everyone had the same exp per _character_ level & spell slots per _caster_ level but bards had reduced _caster_ level progression _and_ every caster got certain spells at different levels so bards could no longer so just grab whatever they wanted from the wizard list


----------



## Yaarel (Jan 3, 2023)

The 5e Bard fullcaster is mythologically accurate, and important.

A 5e half-caster Bard concept can be a new Ranger subclass, called "Troubadour", with urban features and performance skills, possibly switching to or borrowing from the Bard class spell list.

There can also be a Background called "Performer". so a nonmagical character can be this concept in a useful way. It would be nice if the Instrument Proficiency itself granted some worthwhile gaming benefit. Also Rogue or Assassin might want this Background or Proficiency for certain concepts like the Dark Sun Bard to gain entry among aristocrats and so on.


----------



## Clint_L (Jan 3, 2023)

Reading these arguments, I am more inclined to think that an arcane half-caster would have been a good idea back when 5e launched, because there are a lot of sub-classes that might have worked better there - Bladesinger and Arcane Archer definitely come to mind! I also get why the Artificer, which is an arcane half-caster, makes more sense as an optional class, as it is more setting specific and I can see why lots of DMs would prefer not to have that technological element in their campaign.

I fear the PHB ship has sailed, though. One of the main design goals of OneD&D is backwards compatibility with 5e, and I don't see how you make that work with radically transforming someone's class/sub-class. So the way forward is probably not via the PHB, but through whatever the next Xanathar's/Tasha's is going to be.


----------



## Ashrym (Jan 4, 2023)

Vaalingrade said:


> 3e bards still had the penalizing slow spell progression. Even for a spont caster, who were _clearly_ so powerful they needed a stunted spell progression.




Sort of.

Wizards gained spell levels at levels 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, and 17; sorcerers at levels 1, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 18; bards at levels 1(2), 4, 7, 10, 13, and 16.  The spell restrictions for a bard were cantrips at 1st level and one level behind for 1st-level spells compared, the same as sorcerers for 2nd-level spells, and back to only 1 level behind for 3rd-level spells.  They were close until 4th-level spell access but pointing at that specifically ignores the other points I brought up.

All 3 examples cast spells at the caster class level.

3e did not use standard spell levels.  3e adjusted spell levels to the class for when they wanted the class to access it, so what happened was a bard would gain access to spells WotC thought were bard spells at similar levels to other full spell casting classes.

The other major point is bards had magical songs.  At 1st level that included countersong, bardic inspiration, and fascinate.  Spell like ability with songs replaced other slots.  They later gained inspire competence, suggestion, inspire greatness, song of freedom, inspire heroics, and mass suggestion.  That doesn't mean they needed a stunted spell progression.  Their magic was simply split into multiple mechanics.

Here are the numbers of spells known for the relevant comparison:


*Level*​*Wizard*​*Sorcerer*​*Bard*​*Paladin*​*Ranger*​1​5​6​6​1​0​2​7​7​9​2​0​3​9​8​12​2​0​4​11​10​14​3​1​5​13​12​16​3​1​6​15​14​17​4​2​7​18​17​20​4​2​8​20​20​21​5​3​9​22​23​22​5​3​10​24​24​25​6​4​11​26​28​26​6​4​12​28​29​27​7​5​13​30​32​30​7​5​14​32​33​31​8​6​15​34​36​32​9​7​16​36​37​36​10​8​17​38​39​38​11​9​18​40​40​40​12​10​19​42​42​42​15​13​20​44​43​43​16​14​

That includes the most songs in with spells known for the bard, and the smite and lay on hands abilities for the paladin.  Spell casting ability scores are assumed 19, 16, and 14 as the minimums for all spell levels in each class.

Here are the number of magic actions based on those numbers:


*Level*​*Wizard*​*Sorcerer*​*Bard*​*Paladin*​*Ranger*​1​5​9​3​1​0​2​7​11​6​2​0​3​9​12​8​2​0​4​11​17​11​3​1​5​13​18​14​4​1​6​15​23​16​5​2​7​18​25​18​5​2​8​20​30​21​6​3​9​22​32​23​6​3​10​24​36​24​8​4​11​26​38​27​8​4​12​28​42​29​9​5​13​30​44​30​9​5​14​32​48​34​10​6​15​34​50​37​12​7​16​36​54​39​13​8​17​38​56​43​14​9​18​40​60​46​15​10​19​42​62​49​18​13​20​40​64​51​20​14​

This includes songs and smites, and a pool of healing for lay on hands.

Here is the caster levels (based on class level).


*Level*​*Wizard*​*Sorcerer*​*Bard*​*Paladin*​*Ranger*​1​1​1​1​0​0​2​2​2​2​0​0​3​3​3​3​0​0​4​4​4​4​2​2​5​5​5​5​2​2​6​6​6​6​3​3​7​7​7​7​3​3​8​8​8​8​4​4​9​9​9​9​4​4​10​10​10​10​5​5​11​11​11​11​5​5​12​12​12​12​6​6​13​13​13​13​6​6​14​14​14​14​7​7​15​15​15​15​7​7​16​16​16​16​8​8​17​17​17​17​8​8​18​18​18​18​9​9​19​19​19​19​9​9​20​20​20​20​10​10​

A bard gaining an 8th-level wizard spell as a 6th-level bard spell removes the significance of the spell levels, and bard song DC's being based on either perform check or class level brings the DC's in line as well.

The only thing a person does by looking at a specific part of the class is miss the big picture on how it functions overall.  3.5 bards are full casters when we look at how spell levels works and also recognize that they achieve that because of the separate spells and songs mechanics.

It's obvious that when a system is being created looking at past editions that separates spell casting tables the way 5e did that bards are far more in line with full casters as well.



tetrasodium said:


> While citing the 2e exp tables you might want to compare the spell slots available to bars vrs wizards at different levels of experience. You can't compare levlx to level x for the very reason that you cite. Yes bards got experience for finding gold, they did not get experience for casting spells. Wizards got experience for casting spells instead of finding gold.




I might want to compare various classes and other aspects instead of just wizards.  For example, here's the caster level comparison:


*Level*​*Priest*​*Wizard*​*Bard*​*Paladin*​*Ranger*​1​1​1​1​0​0​2​2​2​2​0​0​3​3​3​3​0​0​4​4​4​4​0​0​5​5​5​5​0​0​6​6​6​6​0​0​7​7​7​7​0​0​8​8​8​8​0​1​9​9​9​9​1​2​10​10​10​10​2​3​11​11​11​11​3​4​12​12​12​12​4​5​13​13​13​13​5​6​14​14​14​14​6​7​15​15​15​15​7​8​16​16​16​16​8​9​17​17​17​17​9​9​18​18​18​18​9​9​19​19​19​19​9​9​20​20​20​20​9​9​

Wizards got bonus XP for casting spells to overcome a problem, for crafting magic items, and for successfully researching new spells.  Bards got XP based on the value of treasure, the the HD of monsters defeated, and every time they used a special ability. 



tetrasodium said:


> Even if you compare 2e spell slots at exp N to exp N there's no case for calling bards a "full caster" 20,000 will give you a level 5 wizard with 4/2/*1* spell slots to a level 6 bard with only 3/2 slots. Then at 250,000 you get a level 10 wizard with 4/4/3/2/*2* slots to a level 11& change bard with 3/3/3/1 spell slots. Later at 1,875,000 you get a level 15 wizard with 5/5/5/5/5/2/*1* slots to a level 17 bard with 4/4/3/3/3/1.. Still later at 2,250,000 you get a level 16 wizard with 5/5/5/5/5/3/*2*/*1 *slots & 4 more levels to go in wizard compared to a maxed out level 20 bard with 4/4/4/4/4/3 who will never see level 7 or 8 spells.





*Level*​*Cleric*​*Druid*​*Wizard*​*Bard*​*Paladin*​*Ranger*​1​0​0​0​0​0​0​2​1500​2000​2500​1250​2000​2250​3​3000​4000​5000​2500​4000​4500​4​6000​7500​10000​5000​8000​9000​5​13000​12500​20000​10000​16000​18000​6​27500​20000​40000​20000​32000​36000​7​55000​35000​60000​40000​64000​75000​8​110000​60000​90000​70000​125000​150000​9​225000​90000​135000​110000​250000​300000​10​450000​125000​250000​160000​500000​600000​11​675000​200000​375000​220000​750000​900000​12​900000​300000​750000​440000​1000000​1200000​13​1125000​750000​1125000​660000​1250000​1500000​14​1350000​1500000​1500000​880000​1500000​1800000​15​1575000​3000000​1875000​1100000​1750000​2100000​16​1800000​3500000​2250000​1320000​2000000​2400000​17​2025000​500000​2625000​1540000​2250000​2700000​18​2250000​1000000​3000000​1760000​2500000​3000000​19​2475000​1500000​3375000​1980000​2750000​3300000​20​2700000​2000000​3750000​2200000​3000000​3600000​

I can make it easier for you.   By the time the bard reaches 20th level outside of XP bonuses the cleric is about to hit 18th level, the druid is still 14th level, the wizard is about to turn 16th level, the paladin is about to turn 17th level, and the ranger has just turned 15th level.  Here are your spell slots and caster levels for each:


cleric -- CL 18; 8/8/8/8/6/4/2 and will also never have access to 8th or 9th-level spells.  Possibly only 5th-level spells.
druid -- CL 14; 6/6/6/5/3/2/1 and will also never have access to 8th or 9th-level spells.  Possibly only 5th-level spells.
wizard -- CL 16; 5/5/5/5/5/3/2/1 and is the only class with up to 9th-level spells.  Possibly only only 4th-level spells.
paladin -- CL 9; 3/3/3/1 and will never have better than 4th-level spells.
ranger -- CL 8; 3/3/2 and will never have better than 3rd-level spells.
bard -- CL 20; 4/4/4/4/4/3 and will always have up to 6th-level spells.
That wizard possibly has access to more spells prepped, yes; but the bard has a much better caster level than any other class in an edition where that matters.  I say possibly because 2e also used ability score requirements for spell levels and it takes a lot of luck or generous rolling methods for those other spell casters to meet those requirements.

It's facetious to point to levels for spells in 3e as an argument  and ignore the fact that clerics and druids wouldn't be either applying that same standard because that's the first edition either had those spell levels.

We also cannot ignore the 2e bard's ability to force a paralyzation save at will for influencing attitudes outside of combat.

I would point out that treasure XP bonuses and special ability spam are more effective sources of XP for faster level increases than the table suggests.  My bards were often 2-3 levels higher than wizards at lower levels and more after name level.  2e bards made better fireballs.

As I mentioned above, it's pretty clear that a system separating spellcasting tables into 2 charts (full or half) the bard would fall into the full caster looking at paladins and rangers for comparison.



tetrasodium said:


> With 3.x... Everyone had the same exp per _character_ level & spell slots per _caster_ level but bards had reduced _caster_ level progression _and_ every caster got certain spells at different levels so bards could no longer so just grab whatever they wanted from the wizard list




I demonstrated that bards did not have reduced caster level progression.  Caster level was equal to bard class level. 

Gaining certain spells at different levels is what enabled bards to learn spells at similar levels to other full casters.  That has no bearing on the wizard list just like having a bard spell list instead of using the wizard list has nothing to do with a class's status as a caster.  I gave more earlier in this post as well.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 4, 2023)

Clint_L said:


> Reading these arguments, I am more inclined to think that an arcane half-caster would have been a good idea back when 5e launched, because there are a lot of sub-classes that might have worked better there - Bladesinger and Arcane Archer definitely come to mind!



Definitely. Some, like Arcane trickster, are good where they are, but others…


Clint_L said:


> I also get why the Artificer, which is an arcane half-caster, makes more sense as an optional class, as it is more setting specific and I can see why lots of DMs would prefer not to have that technological element in their campaign.



To be fair, all that makes the Artificer a “tech” class is flavor. They could just as easily be a rune-scribe, or an “Imbuer” who channels elemental and planar energy into objects and potions, or a blessed smith with a living mithral arm whose touch imbues divine power into items because they’re blessed by Moradin or whatever. 

Hell, Artillerist makes a really good Battle Mage, and Alchemist is…an iconic Medieval archetype. Add Ritual Caster feat and it’s a really good representation of the hermetic alchemists. 

The hermetic alchemist, equal parts scientist and magician, is literally more iconic than the “battle priest” or “shapeshifting nature priest” or half the other classes. 


Clint_L said:


> I fear the PHB ship has sailed, though. One of the main design goals of OneD&D is backwards compatibility with 5e, and I don't see how you make that work with radically transforming someone's class/sub-class. So the way forward is probably not via the PHB, but through whatever the next Xanathar's/Tasha's is going to be.



I don’t think you actually need to change or delete any existing subclasses, but all the things in the phb are subjecting to being changed, as long as the new version is compatible with supplemental stuff that is already published. Adding the artificer would mostly just be an issue due to devaluing Tasha’s and Eberron RFTLW. 

Adding a swordmage, or rewriting the monk to be the mystic and making it lean more toward gish while remaining compatible with existing subclasses*, wouldn’t be an issue IMO. 

*you add the ability to choose Int over Wis, ability to choose from 2-3 different defense buffs, including a defense boost that lets you wear armor, and some more explicitly mystical ki abilities, and then you fix the elements subclass so it doesn’t suck. From there it’s just rewriting a lot of flavor, making the core features less hardline about weapons and armor, maybe rework level 5, and go.


----------



## tetrasodium (Jan 4, 2023)

Ashrym said:


> Sort of.
> 
> Wizards gained spell levels at levels 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, and 17; sorcerers at levels 1, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 18; bards at levels 1(2), 4, 7, 10, 13, and 16.  The spell restrictions for a bard were cantrips at 1st level and one level behind for 1st-level spells compared, the same as sorcerers for 2nd-level spells, and back to only 1 level behind for 3rd-level spells.  They were close until 4th-level spell access but pointing at that specifically ignores the other points I brought up.
> 
> ...



The fact that 2e Bards prepared spells from the wizard spell list whily cleric Ranger druid and paladin did not is extremely relevant to why the comparison is bstd&wizard not cleric & bard or pally & bard.


----------



## Knight_Marshal (Jan 4, 2023)

I wouldn't mind seeing the Shaman as a Primal half caster. Make it somewhat if a mix between a druid, ranger and barbarian with a more spirit calling theme.


----------

