For some reason I tend to enjoy third casters more than half casters, probably because the arcane trickster and eldritch knight spell casting comes as a subclass and it feels more like a little bit of extra flavor ontop of an existing base. WIth Ranger im personally never exited by the spellcasting.. I dunno if its because its part of the core features but feels so weak compared to full casters or its something else.. If half casters werent simply a worse version of full casters, but instead had an entirely different approach to magical powers, thatd be preferably imo... And as others have mentioned, that approach should probably be focused on utility and enhancing their martial options.
Four elements monk for example.. I actually think using Ki for spellcasting is far more interesting than being a half caster.. Its just that that Ki is often converted into basic low level spells instead of unique magical monk abilities and the spellcasting doesnt really weave together with the martial abilities of the monk... Which means that on the turn a four elements monk wants to use magic, they are just being a worse caster rather than being a martial artist using magic to enhance themselves.
If half casters werent simply a worse version of full casters, but instead had an entirely different approach to magical powers, thatd be preferably imo
I think that is kind of the intention; a Paladin for example can spend their spell slots on Divine Smite, so doesn't need to worry so much about combat spells and can focus on utility, extra healing etc. Ranger though is definitely more reliant on their spells; if the exploration pillar of the game were better developed that might be less of a problem, or if some of the unique Ranger spells were improved a bit perhaps?
The reason third casters feel good is because the base Fighter and Rogue are both fairly solid to begin with, so the spellcasting is a bonus, and gives a lot of extra flexibility for you to build them out however you like. This is why Four Elements was always disappointing since it isn't anywhere near as flexible as a third caster, and makes you more dependent on the limited resource you already have, rather than giving you extra resources as half/third casters get.
Not that I think the answer is to make everyone some degree of caster, but Wizards of the Coast has shown time and again that they don't understand that Spellcasting isn't just a single feature, it's a collection of really good features (every new spell level) plus some lesser ones (in between when you "only" get a new spell slot). This makes spellcasting as an add-on very strong compared to other sub-classes that are more of a mixed bag, though sub-classes that double down on what the core class is already good at can compete.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
More extreme comment: Half casters were always a bad idea, especially with the implementation of spell levels and spell level equivalencies.
The core problem is action economy: for a fifteenth level character to spend their action on a fourth level spell is just not a good use of an action.
The usual solution for a practical PC is to take spells that don't use your action, and possibly boost your action. Most of the partial casters in the game have options like this:
Rangers have traditionally used Hunter's Mark, which is (a) a bonus action, and (b) more effective if you have more attacks.
Paladins have traditionally used smites, which either don't cost an action at all, or cost a bonus action, and again, combine with your regular melee attacks.
Eldritch Knights in 2014 generally take reactions (shield, absorb elements) and don't have a lot of good higher level options, which is why they're generally considered a weak subclass. The UA eldritch knight solves the action economy problem directly by combining spellcasting with their weapon attacks via War Magic/Improved War Magic.
Arcane Trickster and Artificer still have this problem.
I wonder what it would have been like if half casters followed the same spell progression as full casters (all the way to getting 5th level spells at 9th level) then their spells were capped. Upper levels would just have class features to fill in a few gaps along with subclass features and lower levels would have features about the same as, say, a cleric. So paladins might have a minor channel divinity option at low level and smites. Rangers could maybe have their favored enemy or whatever. And a thematic feature, maybe trap use (based on Arcane Archer features although not tied to ranged attacks necessarily) that they could expend spell slots (like paladin using slots for smites) to do some unique things. Limited, of course, at low levels because of spells, but maybe expanded in tiers 3 and 4. Just a thought.
Four Elements, along with lower ki costs, would have been better, imo, if they had access to all the elemental disciplines (with proper level restrictions) instead of only getting a few to choose from.
I wonder what it would have been like if half casters followed the same spell progression as full casters (all the way to getting 5th level spells at 9th level) then their spells were capped.
I suspect there would be balance issues, but even if not I don't think it would be particularly satisfying. The core fantasy of the half-caster is that you use magic and weapons at the same time, not "round 1 I'm a wizard, round 2 I'm a fighter".
More extreme comment: Half casters were always a bad idea, especially with the implementation of spell levels and spell level equivalencies.
The core problem is action economy: for a fifteenth level character to spend their action on a fourth level spell is just not a good use of an action.
The usual solution for a practical PC is to take spells that don't use your action, and possibly boost your action. Most of the partial casters in the game have options like this:
Rangers have traditionally used Hunter's Mark, which is (a) a bonus action, and (b) more effective if you have more attacks.
Paladins have traditionally used smites, which either don't cost an action at all, or cost a bonus action, and again, combine with your regular melee attacks.
Eldritch Knights in 2014 generally take reactions (shield, absorb elements) and don't have a lot of good higher level options, which is why they're generally considered a weak subclass. The UA eldritch knight solves the action economy problem directly by combining spellcasting with their weapon attacks via War Magic/Improved War Magic.
Arcane Trickster and Artificer still have this problem.
BECMI (and AD&D multiclass) aren't half-casters, they're more like a 1-2 level penalty.
artificer can have their companions cast spells(or other abilities) via items they create in spell storing items, this essentially allows them to cast magic as a Bonus action. It also allows multiple concentration spells. That said it takes a lot of planning, and making items takes a long time in 5e/tashas. The guaranteed version they get at a 11 is more limited than real items.
but just saying they considered how to let artificer cast while doin other things.
I wonder what it would have been like if half casters followed the same spell progression as full casters (all the way to getting 5th level spells at 9th level) then their spells were capped.
I suspect there would be balance issues, but even if not I don't think it would be particularly satisfying. The core fantasy of the half-caster is that you use magic and weapons at the same time, not "round 1 I'm a wizard, round 2 I'm a fighter".
This is the main issue right there: not mixing magic and martial but having to do them separately; it is like they are milking the spells as much as possible give me mechanics that the resources are spells but affect the martial abilities more directly let me use spells to make my weapon increase hit without having to spend an action to cast it or buff it let me move faster without having to choose a specific spell describe it as a feature for buffing, I think the ideal form would be a mixture of what Ki do and paladin smiting with a mixture of some random unique spells no other class has. I know many spells do this, but it feels clunky to be a hybrid it is more like I'm a mage casting enhancements on a martial instead of a self-buffing.
An excellent example of a feature could be instead of casting Firebolt, I fuse it into my weapon attack, only changing attributes or adding a 1d4 dmg to it.
There are more creative ppl out there with better word articulation... I hope my message intent came across. I just want a solid magic swordsman T_T
If half casters werent simply a worse version of full casters, but instead had an entirely different approach to magical powers, thatd be preferably imo
I think that is kind of the intention; a Paladin for example can spend their spell slots on Divine Smite, so doesn't need to worry so much about combat spells and can focus on utility, extra healing etc. Ranger though is definitely more reliant on their spells; if the exploration pillar of the game were better developed that might be less of a problem, or if some of the unique Ranger spells were improved a bit perhaps?
The reason third casters feel good is because the base Fighter and Rogue are both fairly solid to begin with, so the spellcasting is a bonus, and gives a lot of extra flexibility for you to build them out however you like. This is why Four Elements was always disappointing since it isn't anywhere near as flexible as a third caster, and makes you more dependent on the limited resource you already have, rather than giving you extra resources as half/third casters get.
Not that I think the answer is to make everyone some degree of caster, but Wizards of the Coast has shown time and again that they don't understand that Spellcasting isn't just a single feature, it's a collection of really good features (every new spell level) plus some lesser ones (in between when you "only" get a new spell slot). This makes spellcasting as an add-on very strong compared to other sub-classes that are more of a mixed bag, though sub-classes that double down on what the core class is already good at can compete.
The thing with Ranger is that if you look at their class specific spells it's all focused on AoE damage, which could make Ranger that interesting AoE-marital character which would be a unique play style for them. But the problem with that is that with the slower spell slot progression their AoE blast damage is just pathetic compared to full casters, and their class specific spells are just underpowered even when compared to spells of the same level.
They have a little bit of utility, but kind of similar to Paladin, it really comes down to only a handful of spells : Pass without Trace, Goodberry, Conjure Animals [vs Paladin's Find Steed, Zone of Truth, and Detect Evil/Good].
I think ranger spells like conjure barrage would be far more interesting if they involved actually using your gear, if the martial gear you were wearing influenced their effectiveness. For example, instead of prompting a dex saving throw to deal damage defined by the spell, you could make a shared ranged attack at all enemies in the area. This would mean that you actually mix in martial elements like your weapon, other attack based damage boosts, and dex bonus in with your magical abilities.
Because yea, the fantasy of conjure barrage should be "im firing a bunch of arrows", but to me it just feels like any other damage spell, it doesnt actually feel any different to a cone of cold or a fireball, other than the fact that it comes online super late for what it does.
I think ranger spells like conjure barrage would be far more interesting if they involved actually using your gear, if the martial gear you were wearing influenced their effectiveness. For example, instead of prompting a dex saving throw to deal damage defined by the spell, you could make a shared ranged attack at all enemies in the area. This would mean that you actually mix in martial elements like your weapon, other attack based damage boosts, and dex bonus in with your magical abilities.
Because yea, the fantasy of conjure barrage should be "im firing a bunch of arrows", but to me it just feels like any other damage spell, it doesnt actually feel any different to a cone of cold or a fireball, other than the fact that it comes online super later for what it does.
So kind of like Steel Wind Strike? I wouldn’t mind something like that.
I think ranger spells like conjure barrage would be far more interesting if they involved actually using your gear, if the martial gear you were wearing influenced their effectiveness.
Scaling with equipment and class features would also allow making them useful while being appropriately powered for their spell level. For example, something like:
CONJURE BARRAGE 3rd-Level Conjuration Spell (Ranger) Casting Time: Action Range: Self (60-foot cone) Components: V, S, M (a melee or ranged weapon worth at least 1 CP) Duration: Instantaneous
You brandish the weapon used to cast the spell and take the attack action against one target in the area. Choose any number of other creatures in the area; for each chosen creature, if your attack roll would have hit that creature, it takes the same damage. If you have multiple attacks, this applies to all of your attacks. At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 4th level or higher, add 1d8 damage to each attack you make.
This isn't particularly useful to non-martial characters, but for a 9th level ranger with 20 Dex, a +1 longbow, two attacks, hunter's mark, and colossus slayer, that's potentially something like 3d8+2d6+12 (32).
I think ranger spells like conjure barrage would be far more interesting if they involved actually using your gear, if the martial gear you were wearing influenced their effectiveness. For example, instead of prompting a dex saving throw to deal damage defined by the spell, you could make a shared ranged attack at all enemies in the area. This would mean that you actually mix in martial elements like your weapon, other attack based damage boosts, and dex bonus in with your magical abilities.
Because yea, the fantasy of conjure barrage should be "im firing a bunch of arrows", but to me it just feels like any other damage spell, it doesnt actually feel any different to a cone of cold or a fireball, other than the fact that it comes online super later for what it does.
So kind of like Steel Wind Strike? I wouldn’t mind something like that.
Hmm yes, but not quite. I think Steel Wind Strike is almost there, but it still has its damage entirely defined by the spell and relies on spell casting modifer. I mean the spell description says you flourish the weapon used to cast the spell, and yet i could be wielding a spoon and it wouldnt make a difference. Your weapon is essentially not part of the equation.
My suggested version of Steel Wind Strike would involve making regular weapon attacks against each target, with a built-in damage boost of appropriate power level. That way, wielding a +2 weapon will enhance the spell and having things that buff your weapon attacks will similarly synergise.
I think wielding an epic sword should make you better at using steel wind strike.
Similarly, I think wielding a super powerful bow should enhance conjure barrage.
Its basically all about making these kinda spells feel like you are actually a weapon-wielder using magic rather than simply casting a spell like a wizard or a druid would.
Its basically all about making like these spells feel like you are actually a weapon-wielder using magic rather than simply casting a spell like a wizard or a druid would.
So basically, 4th edition :). Neither steel wind strike strike nor conjure barrage exists in 4e, but there are things like
Spray of Arrows
You fire repeatedly with a short draw, showering arrows at each enemy in front of you.
DailyMartial, Weapon Standard ActionClose blast 3
Requirement: You must be wielding a ranged weapon.
Target: Each enemy in the blast you can see
Attack: Dexterity vs. AC
Hit: 2[W] + Dexterity modifier damage.
Miss: Half damage.
which mechanically means (for those not familiar with 4e) that it attacks all enemies in a 15' cube (4e did not use cones), doing twice the base weapon damage (so for a longbow, 2d8) and then adding dexterity modifier, weapon enchantment, and any other damage bonuses from other sources (this is, incidentally, a kind of bad power, but the concept is simple).
Thank you for the clarification! Yes, something along those lines... Obviously itd have to be defined as a spell as long as we are discussing ranger as a half caster. I know 4th edition has a bad rep, but it seems there are some solid ideas in there.
Thank you for the clarification! Yes, something along those lines... Obviously itd have to be defined as a spell as long as we are discussing ranger as a half caster. I know 4th edition has a bad rep, but it seems there are some solid ideas in there.
4e had plenty of good ideas, it just... didn't actually feel like D&D. Mostly because of how it treated spellcasters.
I wonder what it would have been like if half casters followed the same spell progression as full casters (all the way to getting 5th level spells at 9th level) then their spells were capped.
I suspect there would be balance issues, but even if not I don't think it would be particularly satisfying. The core fantasy of the half-caster is that you use magic and weapons at the same time, not "round 1 I'm a wizard, round 2 I'm a fighter".
This is the main issue right there: not mixing magic and martial but having to do them separately; it is like they are milking the spells as much as possible give me mechanics that the resources are spells but affect the martial abilities more directly let me use spells to make my weapon increase hit without having to spend an action to cast it or buff it let me move faster without having to choose a specific spell describe it as a feature for buffing, I think the ideal form would be a mixture of what Ki do and paladin smiting with a mixture of some random unique spells no other class has. I know many spells do this, but it feels clunky to be a hybrid it is more like I'm a mage casting enhancements on a martial instead of a self-buffing.
An excellent example of a feature could be instead of casting Firebolt, I fuse it into my weapon attack, only changing attributes or adding a 1d4 dmg to it.
There are more creative ppl out there with better word articulation... I hope my message intent came across. I just want a solid magic swordsman T_T
This is why they haven't produced a satisfying gish, and also why bladesinger just becomes "normal wizard with a sword" after level 7 or so. They have insisted on keeping martial resources separate from spell slots with a very few exceptions - Paladin smites and Warlock's less successful eldritch smite.
If you build something like Eldritch Knight, your spells are never good enough to be offensively relevant. If you build something like Bladesinger, your spells eventually far outshine your melee capability, making melee attacks a waste of your action. Both of these builds would benefit from a way to directly enhance melee strikes with magic slots, even if it was just as simple as copying Paladin smites with different damage types.
I think thats actually getting at something very true about the kind of gish experience im looking for, and how a gish should function in relation to traditional casters and pure martial. In my ideal world, a gish would have something like the battle masters maneuvers, only fueled by magic which would allow for more spectacular options but on a weaker martial frame.
Itd be cool if you could spend a spell slot to replace a melee attack with a teleport strike, or a perhaps perhaps a magical sweeping attack that allowed you to attack all enemies around you.
I guess this is sorta coming back to my suggested version of conjure barrage. Magical fighty characters would be cooler if they could channel the magic into their martial prowess, instead of having it be an alernative to it.
I think thats actually getting at something very true about the kind of gish experience im looking for, and how a gish should function in relation to traditional casters and pure martial. In my ideal world, a gish would have something like the battle masters maneuvers, only fueled by magic which would allow for more spectacular options but on a weaker martial frame.
Itd be cool if you could spend a spell slot to replace a melee attack with a teleport strike, or a perhaps perhaps a magical sweeping attack that allowed you to attack all enemies around you.
I guess this is sorta coming back to my suggested version of conjure barrage. Magical fighty characters would be cooler if they could channel the magic into their martial prowess, instead of having it be an alernative to it.
This is what im talking about magic used on physical moves, channeling magic on ur extra attack for other effects and the like something more unique not just having access to spells already set for Mages but unique things that maybe trigger more on bonus action supporting main attacks and the like?
There's more than one concept for a gish, but I'd say there's probably two core categories
A fighter who augments their weapon skill with magic. This is probably the arcane equivalent of a paladin, using smite-like effects.
Someone who dual-wields weapon and spell -- one hand holds a sword, the other hand holds a focus or spell effect. Mechanically this would be a class that has some sort of multiattack or being able to do one of those two as a bonus action.
There are classes that can do the second in 5e, but other than cantrips, only at very high level (level 14 valor bard or level 18 eldritch knight) -- beyond where most campaigns actually get. A half-caster who can dual-wield a light weapon and a spell (take the attack action with a light weapon, then cast a spell as an offhand attack as a bonus action) would probably be decently balanced as early as level 3.
There's more than one concept for a gish, but I'd say there's probably two core categories
A fighter who augments their weapon skill with magic. This is probably the arcane equivalent of a paladin, using smite-like effects.
Someone who dual-wields weapon and spell -- one hand holds a sword, the other hand holds a focus or spell effect. Mechanically this would be a class that has some sort of multiattack or being able to do one of those two as a bonus action.
There are classes that can do the second in 5e, but other than cantrips, only at very high level (level 14 valor bard or level 18 eldritch knight) -- beyond where most campaigns actually get. A half-caster who can dual-wield a light weapon and a spell (take the attack action with a light weapon, then cast a spell as an offhand attack as a bonus action) would probably be decently balanced as early as level 3.
I would say blade Warlock kind of approaches 1 as well, but has never been fully developed. What 5e needs is some more spells that can be cast as bonus actions to bolster melee attacks. Smite spells seem set to get better now at least, if Warlocks (or at least pact of the blade or hexblade warlocks) had more access to these then that could help somewhat, once warlock's resource issues are solved that is, as they could cast smite spells to bolster their melee attacks in a proper caster/martial fusion. Currently a lot of good spells for warlocks require an action to cast, so if you can't set them up immediately before a fight you have to lose a turn to activate them. More spells that incorporate actual weapon attacks (as discussed early on this page) would also help; these would be spells that are explicitly better for gish types since full casters typically aren't that good with weapons outside of certain sub-classes.
In some ways it would have been better if 5e had been designed around a proper two action economy with all spellcasters getting access to the same spell levels, but only full casters able to use both actions for casting (or able to cast stronger spells that consume both actions on a turn to cast them). This way we could have had true half casting with players casting a spell and also attacking each turn, without the inconsistency of having to add rules that lets some sub-classes use their bonus action to attack, others to swap an attack for a cantrip etc. which only makes things messy and unbalanced. Plus all spellcasters would level up their casting at the same rate.
Of course that would then need to be contingent on the attack action scaling for martials to keep up with spellcasting, so a martial using both actions to attack (or use combat manoeuvres or other features that the game sorely lacks as standard) is able to contribute similarly.
There's also a possible argument that spellcasting never should have been so resource bound as it is in 5e, because if the bulk of spellcasting were free to use it could have been balanced better against other free to use abilities such as weapon attacks, i.e- spells would either be stronger but less reliable, or weaker and more reliable, with only big special spells having additional resource limits to counterbalance their bigger impact.
But any of these would be big fundamental changes to the game that OneD&D isn't going to make, so we're stuck with bolting things onto the 5e action economy for the foreseeable future. With that in mind what they really need to do is come up with a template for common wording to apply to gish sub-classes and features so we can at least have something common to balance around, rather than the current mash-up of ideas scattered all over.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
For some reason I tend to enjoy third casters more than half casters, probably because the arcane trickster and eldritch knight spell casting comes as a subclass and it feels more like a little bit of extra flavor ontop of an existing base. WIth Ranger im personally never exited by the spellcasting.. I dunno if its because its part of the core features but feels so weak compared to full casters or its something else.. If half casters werent simply a worse version of full casters, but instead had an entirely different approach to magical powers, thatd be preferably imo... And as others have mentioned, that approach should probably be focused on utility and enhancing their martial options.
Four elements monk for example.. I actually think using Ki for spellcasting is far more interesting than being a half caster.. Its just that that Ki is often converted into basic low level spells instead of unique magical monk abilities and the spellcasting doesnt really weave together with the martial abilities of the monk... Which means that on the turn a four elements monk wants to use magic, they are just being a worse caster rather than being a martial artist using magic to enhance themselves.
I think that is kind of the intention; a Paladin for example can spend their spell slots on Divine Smite, so doesn't need to worry so much about combat spells and can focus on utility, extra healing etc. Ranger though is definitely more reliant on their spells; if the exploration pillar of the game were better developed that might be less of a problem, or if some of the unique Ranger spells were improved a bit perhaps?
The reason third casters feel good is because the base Fighter and Rogue are both fairly solid to begin with, so the spellcasting is a bonus, and gives a lot of extra flexibility for you to build them out however you like. This is why Four Elements was always disappointing since it isn't anywhere near as flexible as a third caster, and makes you more dependent on the limited resource you already have, rather than giving you extra resources as half/third casters get.
Not that I think the answer is to make everyone some degree of caster, but Wizards of the Coast has shown time and again that they don't understand that Spellcasting isn't just a single feature, it's a collection of really good features (every new spell level) plus some lesser ones (in between when you "only" get a new spell slot). This makes spellcasting as an add-on very strong compared to other sub-classes that are more of a mixed bag, though sub-classes that double down on what the core class is already good at can compete.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
The core problem is action economy: for a fifteenth level character to spend their action on a fourth level spell is just not a good use of an action.
The usual solution for a practical PC is to take spells that don't use your action, and possibly boost your action. Most of the partial casters in the game have options like this:
BECMI (and AD&D multiclass) aren't half-casters, they're more like a 1-2 level penalty.
I wonder what it would have been like if half casters followed the same spell progression as full casters (all the way to getting 5th level spells at 9th level) then their spells were capped. Upper levels would just have class features to fill in a few gaps along with subclass features and lower levels would have features about the same as, say, a cleric. So paladins might have a minor channel divinity option at low level and smites. Rangers could maybe have their favored enemy or whatever. And a thematic feature, maybe trap use (based on Arcane Archer features although not tied to ranged attacks necessarily) that they could expend spell slots (like paladin using slots for smites) to do some unique things. Limited, of course, at low levels because of spells, but maybe expanded in tiers 3 and 4. Just a thought.
Four Elements, along with lower ki costs, would have been better, imo, if they had access to all the elemental disciplines (with proper level restrictions) instead of only getting a few to choose from.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I suspect there would be balance issues, but even if not I don't think it would be particularly satisfying. The core fantasy of the half-caster is that you use magic and weapons at the same time, not "round 1 I'm a wizard, round 2 I'm a fighter".
artificer can have their companions cast spells(or other abilities) via items they create in spell storing items, this essentially allows them to cast magic as a Bonus action. It also allows multiple concentration spells. That said it takes a lot of planning, and making items takes a long time in 5e/tashas. The guaranteed version they get at a 11 is more limited than real items.
but just saying they considered how to let artificer cast while doin other things.
This is the main issue right there: not mixing magic and martial but having to do them separately; it is like they are milking the spells as much as possible give me mechanics that the resources are spells but affect the martial abilities more directly let me use spells to make my weapon increase hit without having to spend an action to cast it or buff it let me move faster without having to choose a specific spell describe it as a feature for buffing, I think the ideal form would be a mixture of what Ki do and paladin smiting with a mixture of some random unique spells no other class has. I know many spells do this, but it feels clunky to be a hybrid it is more like I'm a mage casting enhancements on a martial instead of a self-buffing.
An excellent example of a feature could be instead of casting Firebolt, I fuse it into my weapon attack, only changing attributes or adding a 1d4 dmg to it.
There are more creative ppl out there with better word articulation... I hope my message intent came across. I just want a solid magic swordsman T_T
The thing with Ranger is that if you look at their class specific spells it's all focused on AoE damage, which could make Ranger that interesting AoE-marital character which would be a unique play style for them. But the problem with that is that with the slower spell slot progression their AoE blast damage is just pathetic compared to full casters, and their class specific spells are just underpowered even when compared to spells of the same level.
They have a little bit of utility, but kind of similar to Paladin, it really comes down to only a handful of spells : Pass without Trace, Goodberry, Conjure Animals [vs Paladin's Find Steed, Zone of Truth, and Detect Evil/Good].
I think ranger spells like conjure barrage would be far more interesting if they involved actually using your gear, if the martial gear you were wearing influenced their effectiveness. For example, instead of prompting a dex saving throw to deal damage defined by the spell, you could make a shared ranged attack at all enemies in the area. This would mean that you actually mix in martial elements like your weapon, other attack based damage boosts, and dex bonus in with your magical abilities.
Because yea, the fantasy of conjure barrage should be "im firing a bunch of arrows", but to me it just feels like any other damage spell, it doesnt actually feel any different to a cone of cold or a fireball, other than the fact that it comes online super late for what it does.
So kind of like Steel Wind Strike? I wouldn’t mind something like that.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Scaling with equipment and class features would also allow making them useful while being appropriately powered for their spell level. For example, something like:
This isn't particularly useful to non-martial characters, but for a 9th level ranger with 20 Dex, a +1 longbow, two attacks, hunter's mark, and colossus slayer, that's potentially something like 3d8+2d6+12 (32).
Hmm yes, but not quite. I think Steel Wind Strike is almost there, but it still has its damage entirely defined by the spell and relies on spell casting modifer. I mean the spell description says you flourish the weapon used to cast the spell, and yet i could be wielding a spoon and it wouldnt make a difference. Your weapon is essentially not part of the equation.
My suggested version of Steel Wind Strike would involve making regular weapon attacks against each target, with a built-in damage boost of appropriate power level. That way, wielding a +2 weapon will enhance the spell and having things that buff your weapon attacks will similarly synergise.
I think wielding an epic sword should make you better at using steel wind strike.
Similarly, I think wielding a super powerful bow should enhance conjure barrage.
Its basically all about making these kinda spells feel like you are actually a weapon-wielder using magic rather than simply casting a spell like a wizard or a druid would.
So basically, 4th edition :). Neither steel wind strike strike nor conjure barrage exists in 4e, but there are things like
which mechanically means (for those not familiar with 4e) that it attacks all enemies in a 15' cube (4e did not use cones), doing twice the base weapon damage (so for a longbow, 2d8) and then adding dexterity modifier, weapon enchantment, and any other damage bonuses from other sources (this is, incidentally, a kind of bad power, but the concept is simple).
Thank you for the clarification! Yes, something along those lines... Obviously itd have to be defined as a spell as long as we are discussing ranger as a half caster. I know 4th edition has a bad rep, but it seems there are some solid ideas in there.
4e had plenty of good ideas, it just... didn't actually feel like D&D. Mostly because of how it treated spellcasters.
This is why they haven't produced a satisfying gish, and also why bladesinger just becomes "normal wizard with a sword" after level 7 or so. They have insisted on keeping martial resources separate from spell slots with a very few exceptions - Paladin smites and Warlock's less successful eldritch smite.
If you build something like Eldritch Knight, your spells are never good enough to be offensively relevant. If you build something like Bladesinger, your spells eventually far outshine your melee capability, making melee attacks a waste of your action. Both of these builds would benefit from a way to directly enhance melee strikes with magic slots, even if it was just as simple as copying Paladin smites with different damage types.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I think thats actually getting at something very true about the kind of gish experience im looking for, and how a gish should function in relation to traditional casters and pure martial. In my ideal world, a gish would have something like the battle masters maneuvers, only fueled by magic which would allow for more spectacular options but on a weaker martial frame.
Itd be cool if you could spend a spell slot to replace a melee attack with a teleport strike, or a perhaps perhaps a magical sweeping attack that allowed you to attack all enemies around you.
I guess this is sorta coming back to my suggested version of conjure barrage. Magical fighty characters would be cooler if they could channel the magic into their martial prowess, instead of having it be an alernative to it.
This is what im talking about magic used on physical moves, channeling magic on ur extra attack for other effects and the like something more unique not just having access to spells already set for Mages but unique things that maybe trigger more on bonus action supporting main attacks and the like?
There's more than one concept for a gish, but I'd say there's probably two core categories
There are classes that can do the second in 5e, but other than cantrips, only at very high level (level 14 valor bard or level 18 eldritch knight) -- beyond where most campaigns actually get. A half-caster who can dual-wield a light weapon and a spell (take the attack action with a light weapon, then cast a spell as an offhand attack as a bonus action) would probably be decently balanced as early as level 3.
I would say blade Warlock kind of approaches 1 as well, but has never been fully developed. What 5e needs is some more spells that can be cast as bonus actions to bolster melee attacks. Smite spells seem set to get better now at least, if Warlocks (or at least pact of the blade or hexblade warlocks) had more access to these then that could help somewhat, once warlock's resource issues are solved that is, as they could cast smite spells to bolster their melee attacks in a proper caster/martial fusion. Currently a lot of good spells for warlocks require an action to cast, so if you can't set them up immediately before a fight you have to lose a turn to activate them. More spells that incorporate actual weapon attacks (as discussed early on this page) would also help; these would be spells that are explicitly better for gish types since full casters typically aren't that good with weapons outside of certain sub-classes.
In some ways it would have been better if 5e had been designed around a proper two action economy with all spellcasters getting access to the same spell levels, but only full casters able to use both actions for casting (or able to cast stronger spells that consume both actions on a turn to cast them). This way we could have had true half casting with players casting a spell and also attacking each turn, without the inconsistency of having to add rules that lets some sub-classes use their bonus action to attack, others to swap an attack for a cantrip etc. which only makes things messy and unbalanced. Plus all spellcasters would level up their casting at the same rate.
Of course that would then need to be contingent on the attack action scaling for martials to keep up with spellcasting, so a martial using both actions to attack (or use combat manoeuvres or other features that the game sorely lacks as standard) is able to contribute similarly.
There's also a possible argument that spellcasting never should have been so resource bound as it is in 5e, because if the bulk of spellcasting were free to use it could have been balanced better against other free to use abilities such as weapon attacks, i.e- spells would either be stronger but less reliable, or weaker and more reliable, with only big special spells having additional resource limits to counterbalance their bigger impact.
But any of these would be big fundamental changes to the game that OneD&D isn't going to make, so we're stuck with bolting things onto the 5e action economy for the foreseeable future. With that in mind what they really need to do is come up with a template for common wording to apply to gish sub-classes and features so we can at least have something common to balance around, rather than the current mash-up of ideas scattered all over.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.