Yes and the ranger can take feats to even up some of the things the blade singer gets free. The point was to see how they compared straight up. If you read back I agreed the bladesinger had an overall edge-specifically because it gets the ability to cast L6-9 spells. Otherwise they are very close in overall ability even if it comes from different sources. Of course once you get them out in the wilds the ranger’s wilderness skills and abilities give it an edge there.
But a Bladesinger is still the best mage-knight available in 5E.
Eh, Artificer (Armorer or Battle Smith), Bard (Swords or Valor), and Warlock (Hexblade) are all reasonable choices as well.
A little off topic but looking at this list...
Anyone else think it's kind of weird that the Sorcerer doesn't have a subclass like this? At this point every spellcaster has at least one, sometimes two, subs designed around making them more of a frontliner. Feels strange the Sorcerer doesn't.
But a Bladesinger is still the best mage-knight available in 5E.
Eh, Artificer (Armorer or Battle Smith), Bard (Swords or Valor), and Warlock (Hexblade) are all reasonable choices as well.
A little off topic but looking at this list...
Anyone else think it's kind of weird that the Sorcerer doesn't have a subclass like this? At this point every spellcaster has at least one, sometimes two, subs designed around making them more of a frontliner. Feels strange the Sorcerer doesn't.
It's extra weird, as in the playtest the sorcerer was a half caster arcane gish, with d8 hit die, and all weapons/armour. And now it's the only caster without a gish subclass.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Definitionally, what should qualify as a half-caster? A bladesinger to me feels like a full caster that can do some fantastic martial things. When I think of half-casters, I am thinking of the ranger, paladin, artificer, and maybe arcane trickster. When I think of the ultimate gish, I think of the bladesinger though. Is there a distinction between the two labels? Should there be?
Definitionally, what should qualify as a half-caster? A bladesinger to me feels like a full caster that can do some fantastic martial things. When I think of half-casters, I am thinking of the ranger, paladin, artificer, and maybe arcane trickster. When I think of the ultimate gish, I think of the bladesinger though. Is there a distinction between the two labels? Should there be?
Bladesinger is definitely a full caster that can fight well. The Eldritch Knight can also fight well, but is a terrible caster and that is why when you compare the two, the Knight falls a bit short in my opinion. It isn't that I don't like Eldritch Knight, but it suffers from being an OG subclass and most of those are pretty meh compared to the newer subclasses available.
As I understand it, half caster refers specifically to paladin, ranger and artificer because of their class design. They have the traditional spell slot structure that full casters have but get their slots and spell levels more slowly, while having more martial abilities. Paladin and Ranger are basically marital classes first but with some magic. Artificer is a bit different, it gets spells right away and how martial it is seems to depend on the subclass you take, but it still has the similar slowed spell slot progression.
Third Casters then refers to eldritch knight and arcane trickster, as just SUBclasses that get access to spell slots at level 3 and gain them even more slowly than half casters. (Though funnily enough they get cantrips which rangers and paladins do not by default.)
Unless I'm mistaken, full caster options like bladesinger t hat gain more martial prowess are not technically half casters.
Thank you all for your responses. I feel that we are aligned in our understanding. I raised the question because the bladesinger was getting a lot of discussion more recently, when I felt that they shouldn’t really qualify as half-casters.
Thank you all for your responses. I feel that we are aligned in our understanding. I raised the question because the bladesinger was getting a lot of discussion more recently, when I felt that they shouldn’t really qualify as half-casters.
Bladesinger, Hexlock, Sword/Valor Bards are gish but not half-caster.
Each is from a (more or less) full caster class and as such really shouldn’t be compared to half casters. That said the half casters are at the least in the same league with them at least up to their spell level max.
Thank you all for your responses. I feel that we are aligned in our understanding. I raised the question because the bladesinger was getting a lot of discussion more recently, when I felt that they shouldn’t really qualify as half-casters.
Bladesinger, Hexlock, Sword/Valor Bards are gish but not half-caster.
Each is from a (more or less) full caster class and as such really shouldn’t be compared to half casters. That said the half casters are at the least in the same league with them at least up to their spell level max.
Sort of?
A bladesinger wizard is always going to have more and higher level spells available compared to a ranger or paladin of the same level. Half caster magic seems much more focused on supplementing their martial abilities or providing support, than using the magic as their main feature. Paladins have divine smite and plenty of smite spells. Rangers have hunter's mark and several 'strike' spells, aoe arrow spells etc.
Hexblade and Bladesinger etc are more like full casters with buffs to their martial abilities, while half casters are at their core martial and use their more limited magic to support their martial half.
It really feels like apples and oranges to me trying to compare them side by side, their goals feel very different to me.
Thank you all for your responses. I feel that we are aligned in our understanding. I raised the question because the bladesinger was getting a lot of discussion more recently, when I felt that they shouldn’t really qualify as half-casters.
Bladesinger, Hexlock, Sword/Valor Bards are gish but not half-caster.
Warlocks don't fit into the full/half/third caster paradigm at all - it's fair to claim they're not half-casters, but it's also fair to claim they're not full casters, because they're neither.
Definitionally, what should qualify as a half-caster? A bladesinger to me feels like a full caster that can do some fantastic martial things. When I think of half-casters, I am thinking of the ranger, paladin, artificer, and maybe arcane trickster. When I think of the ultimate gish, I think of the bladesinger though. Is there a distinction between the two labels? Should there be?
Half caster refers specifically to their spell slot progression up to 5th level spell slots. They gain 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th level spell slots at 5th, 9th, 13th, and 17th levels respectively, in the class. Until Artificer was introduced only Paladins and Rangers were half casters and they got their 1st level spell slots at 2nd level and no cantrips. Artificer threw a wrench in the works as they get cantrips and their 1st level spell slots at 1st level Artificer. But they are all half casters.
It has nothing to do with how “martial” or how “spellcaster-y” they play. So Bladesingers are wizards (full casters) no matter if you cast a spell or swing a weapon.
A bladesinger can learn Haste as early as 5th level. At 11th level they can cast 6th level spells.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Yes and the ranger can take feats to even up some of the things the blade singer gets free. The point was to see how they compared straight up. If you read back I agreed the bladesinger had an overall edge-specifically because it gets the ability to cast L6-9 spells. Otherwise they are very close in overall ability even if it comes from different sources. Of course once you get them out in the wilds the ranger’s wilderness skills and abilities give it an edge there.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
A little off topic but looking at this list...
Anyone else think it's kind of weird that the Sorcerer doesn't have a subclass like this? At this point every spellcaster has at least one, sometimes two, subs designed around making them more of a frontliner. Feels strange the Sorcerer doesn't.
It's extra weird, as in the playtest the sorcerer was a half caster arcane gish, with d8 hit die, and all weapons/armour. And now it's the only caster without a gish subclass.
What is 'gish?
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
A character which merges martial combat and magic. Originally refers to a particular type of elite githyanki warrior.
Definitionally, what should qualify as a half-caster? A bladesinger to me feels like a full caster that can do some fantastic martial things. When I think of half-casters, I am thinking of the ranger, paladin, artificer, and maybe arcane trickster. When I think of the ultimate gish, I think of the bladesinger though. Is there a distinction between the two labels? Should there be?
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Bladesinger is definitely a full caster that can fight well. The Eldritch Knight can also fight well, but is a terrible caster and that is why when you compare the two, the Knight falls a bit short in my opinion. It isn't that I don't like Eldritch Knight, but it suffers from being an OG subclass and most of those are pretty meh compared to the newer subclasses available.
But neither are Half Casters
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
As I understand it, half caster refers specifically to paladin, ranger and artificer because of their class design. They have the traditional spell slot structure that full casters have but get their slots and spell levels more slowly, while having more martial abilities. Paladin and Ranger are basically marital classes first but with some magic. Artificer is a bit different, it gets spells right away and how martial it is seems to depend on the subclass you take, but it still has the similar slowed spell slot progression.
Third Casters then refers to eldritch knight and arcane trickster, as just SUBclasses that get access to spell slots at level 3 and gain them even more slowly than half casters. (Though funnily enough they get cantrips which rangers and paladins do not by default.)
Unless I'm mistaken, full caster options like bladesinger t hat gain more martial prowess are not technically half casters.
Caster level is half of character level -- so artificer, paladin, ranger.
Thank you all for your responses. I feel that we are aligned in our understanding. I raised the question because the bladesinger was getting a lot of discussion more recently, when I felt that they shouldn’t really qualify as half-casters.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Bladesinger, Hexlock, Sword/Valor Bards are gish but not half-caster.
Each is from a (more or less) full caster class and as such really shouldn’t be compared to half casters. That said the half casters are at the least in the same league with them at least up to their spell level max.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I would definitely agree. :)
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Sort of?
A bladesinger wizard is always going to have more and higher level spells available compared to a ranger or paladin of the same level. Half caster magic seems much more focused on supplementing their martial abilities or providing support, than using the magic as their main feature. Paladins have divine smite and plenty of smite spells. Rangers have hunter's mark and several 'strike' spells, aoe arrow spells etc.
Hexblade and Bladesinger etc are more like full casters with buffs to their martial abilities, while half casters are at their core martial and use their more limited magic to support their martial half.
It really feels like apples and oranges to me trying to compare them side by side, their goals feel very different to me.
Warlocks don't fit into the full/half/third caster paradigm at all - it's fair to claim they're not half-casters, but it's also fair to claim they're not full casters, because they're neither.
Half caster refers specifically to their spell slot progression up to 5th level spell slots. They gain 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th level spell slots at 5th, 9th, 13th, and 17th levels respectively, in the class. Until Artificer was introduced only Paladins and Rangers were half casters and they got their 1st level spell slots at 2nd level and no cantrips. Artificer threw a wrench in the works as they get cantrips and their 1st level spell slots at 1st level Artificer. But they are all half casters.
It has nothing to do with how “martial” or how “spellcaster-y” they play. So Bladesingers are wizards (full casters) no matter if you cast a spell or swing a weapon.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?