Yo! we have full casters half casters and third casters (ew) but we dont have 3/4th casters and i feel like they would fit very well in 5e for the artificer ranger and bard.
Why do you think it would fit those classes better than the current groupings?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
Why do you think it would fit those classes better than the current groupings?
Artificers have always felt good but a little lacking mainly in the spell slot area as you are positioned as this support team caster/ damage dealer maybe even semi tank. Thing is your spell slots dont keep up for what your team or you might need them for. IMO the alchemist subclass feels this the most bc to get the potions you want you need to spend spell slots and with being a half caster while you have some to spare you are also pretty limited as to what you can do with them if you dont want to run out early.
Rangers have always felt weird to me as a half caster with them being some druid/fighter/rogue mix they have set and forget type spells and while the spells are thematic they dont feel good because most are based on ranged attacks when some people like to play a melee ranger. this may have more to do with their spell list itself but they also like the artificer are encouraged to spend alot of their spells outside of combat and inside of combat with hunters mark, zepher strike to feel better in the damage area. bumping them up to a 3/4ths caster would let them get more bang for their buck rather then just being the worst parts of fighter and druid. (or maybe changing their spell list to include other fitting and stronger spells could help more)
Bards are IMO the strongest class in the game and with their casting being tied to charisma something that can be very strong even in a new persons hands they will naturally want to get it maxed if not hunt the items that let them go beyond 20. pushing them back to 3/4ths casters instead of being full casters would be a nerf but a balanced nerf without hurting them to much. even without a subclass their base kit is built around being a jack of all trades while being masters in some still making them an amazing support class. (if not to amazing)
I find the issue with rangers isn’t that they don’t have enough slots, it’s that their casting stat is a secondary stat, so they end up with low save DCs. So, players end up choosing more out of combat spells that don’t involve saves. Side note, there’s some very good melee ranger spells.
I could go on more generally about how they are much more than the worst parts of fighters and druids, but I don’t want to derail the thread.
I find the issue with rangers isn’t that they don’t have enough slots, it’s that their casting stat is a secondary stat, so they end up with low save DCs. So, players end up choosing more out of combat spells that don’t involve saves. Side note, there’s some very good melee ranger spells.
I could go on more generally about how they are much more than the worst parts of fighters and druids, but I don’t want to derail the thread.
Honestly, the save DC issue is overrated; you can easily hit +3 WIS out of the gate with point buy, particularly if you’re gonna be an archer and so don’t need as much CON, and you’re unlikely to cause enough saving throws in a short period of time for the 10% mod difference to have more sway than the simple dice variance.
Getting back to the topic at hand, the problem with a 3/4 caster concept is that they would likely still end up being fairly “stuck in the middle”; we already have a few full caster options with Extra Attack and some other martial features, so it seems difficult to create an option that has a smaller and slower spellcasting progression but apparently not the same martial clout as the current half casters. Unless what’s really being suggested here is that half casters need more spellcasting, which is a whole other discussion about power balance and how a class should handle.
I generally already think of Artificers more as “¾—⅔ casters” since they’re like a ½ caster + an additional level of available spells (Cantrips), and they start a level earlier and round up not down when multiclassing, and they get to cast as ritual casters too. I mean, how much more can you want? If you tack on 6th-level spells and the requisite slot progression increase then you’re into “⅘ (80%) caster” territory at that point because they will literally have access to 4/5 of the spell levels (C—6th/C—9th), and would require the slot progression to match. If you take away cantrips to compensate then people are gonna look at you like 🤨. The artificer essentially is the template for a ”¾ caster” like you’re looking for.
*Known Spells applies to the Ranger build type for this example
I personally don't think a 3/4 caster build is needed. I feel the like real benefit of being a full caster over the half caster is the 6th through 9th level spells. Yes, the full caster progresses at a quicker pace but the access to 6th level and higher slots is what really separates the groups.
The way the game is set up now, there is only one 5th level spell different between the full and half caster at level 20. So the only way to add more spell slots to create a 3/4 caster is to give them access to the 6th level and higher spell slots. I don't think the non-full caster classes should have access to the higher level spell slots.
*Known Spells applies to the Ranger build type for this example
I personally don't think a 3/4 caster build is needed. I feel the like real benefit of being a full caster over the half caster is the 6th through 9th level spells. Yes, the full caster progresses at a quicker pace but the access to 6th level and higher slots is what really separates the groups.
The way the game is set up now, there is only one 5th level spell different between the full and half caster at level 20. So the only way to add more spell slots to create a 3/4 caster is to give them access to the 6th level and higher spell slots. I don't think the non-full caster classes should have access to the higher level spell slots.
What you suggest would be (assuming you intend for them to also get access to cantrips too), more like a 9/10 caster, not a ¾ caster. You’re correct about access to 6th-level and higher spells, which is precisely why ½ casters cap out at 5th-level spells. If one were to create a type of caster part or half way between the distribution that Artificers get and what a full caster gets, it would have to cap with 6th-level spells and slots, or at absolute most, a single 7th-level spell and a single 7th-level slot at 20th level.
If there were such a thing as this theoretical¾ caster, it couldn’t possibly ave a table with any more spell levels & slots than this at the absolute most:
id imagine a 3/4ths caster to be capped at 7th level spells. also youre right theres alot of power in the higher leveled spells but also the suggested half casters would get alot more out of their 1st and 2nd levels spells without fear of needing a nap so often
I prefer 2/3 caster to 3/4 because 2/3 means a consistent 'gain a spell level every 3 levels'. If we go with a rule of 'round up' (which is what actual subclasses seem to do), we get
I find the issue with rangers isn’t that they don’t have enough slots, it’s that their casting stat is a secondary stat, so they end up with low save DCs. So, players end up choosing more out of combat spells that don’t involve saves. Side note, there’s some very good melee ranger spells.
I could go on more generally about how they are much more than the worst parts of fighters and druids, but I don’t want to derail the thread.
Honestly, the save DC issue is overrated; you can easily hit +3 WIS out of the gate with point buy, particularly if you’re gonna be an archer and so don’t need as much CON, and you’re unlikely to cause enough saving throws in a short period of time for the 10% mod difference to have more sway than the simple dice variance.
Rangers also have an excellent selection of spells that either don't have saving throws, or the saving throw is secondary.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
I prefer 2/3 caster to 3/4 because 2/3 means a consistent 'gain a spell level every 3 levels'. If we go with a rule of 'round up' (which is what actual subclasses seem to do), we get
2/-
3/-
3/-
4/2/-
4/3/-
4/3/-
4/3/2/-
4/3/3/-
4/3/3/-
4/3/3/1/-
4/3/3/2/-
4/3/3/2/-
4/3/3/3/1/-
4/3/3/3/2/-
4/3/3/3/2/-
4/3/3/3/2/1/-
4/3/3/3/2/1/-
4/3/3/3/2/1/-
4/3/3/3/2/1/1/-
4/3/3/3/2/1/1/-
That’s pretty darned close to what I had come up with more or less. I also went with getting a new spell level every 3 levels. I just have the incremental increases of the number of slots for each individual spell level happening a little slower, and I was generous and gave them a fourth 2nd-level spell slot after a while. But the overall gist is roughly about the same give or take. I’m curious what you imagine for number of cantrips and spells known is.
I prefer 2/3 caster to 3/4 because 2/3 means a consistent 'gain a spell level every 3 levels'. If we go with a rule of 'round up' (which is what actual subclasses seem to do), we get
2/-
3/-
3/-
4/2/-
4/3/-
4/3/-
4/3/2/-
4/3/3/-
4/3/3/-
4/3/3/1/-
4/3/3/2/-
4/3/3/2/-
4/3/3/3/1/-
4/3/3/3/2/-
4/3/3/3/2/-
4/3/3/3/2/1/-
4/3/3/3/2/1/-
4/3/3/3/2/1/-
4/3/3/3/2/1/1/-
4/3/3/3/2/1/1/-
That’s pretty darned close to what I had come up with more or less. I also went with getting a new spell level every 3 levels. I just have the incremental increases of the number of slots for each individual spell level happening a little slower, and I was generous and gave them a fourth 2nd-level spell slot after a while. But the overall gist is roughly about the same give or take. I’m curious what you imagine for number of cantrips and spells known is.
honestly besides the way artificer get their spells i think you did a great job IamSposta do you mind if i use that chart?
I prefer 2/3 caster to 3/4 because 2/3 means a consistent 'gain a spell level every 3 levels'. If we go with a rule of 'round up' (which is what actual subclasses seem to do), we get
2/-
3/-
3/-
4/2/-
4/3/-
4/3/-
4/3/2/-
4/3/3/-
4/3/3/-
4/3/3/1/-
4/3/3/2/-
4/3/3/2/-
4/3/3/3/1/-
4/3/3/3/2/-
4/3/3/3/2/-
4/3/3/3/2/1/-
4/3/3/3/2/1/-
4/3/3/3/2/1/-
4/3/3/3/2/1/1/-
4/3/3/3/2/1/1/-
That’s pretty darned close to what I had come up with more or less. I also went with getting a new spell level every 3 levels. I just have the incremental increases of the number of slots for each individual spell level happening a little slower, and I was generous and gave them a fourth 2nd-level spell slot after a while. But the overall gist is roughly about the same give or take. I’m curious what you imagine for number of cantrips and spells known is.
honestly besides the way artificer get their spells i think you did a great job IamSposta do you mind if i use that chart?
Thanks. Not at all. By all means if you think it helpful. All I ask is that if you publish it anywhere you credit me or give me a shoutout as a creative contributor or something. I’m tryin’a get my name out there as a designer and would appreciate the plug. If you don’t publish and only use it for yourself then all I ask is for feedback on how well it works. Deal?
Yo! we have full casters half casters and third casters (ew) but we dont have 3/4th casters and i feel like they would fit very well in 5e for the artificer ranger and bard.
Why do you think it would fit those classes better than the current groupings?
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.
Artificers have always felt good but a little lacking mainly in the spell slot area as you are positioned as this support team caster/ damage dealer maybe even semi tank. Thing is your spell slots dont keep up for what your team or you might need them for. IMO the alchemist subclass feels this the most bc to get the potions you want you need to spend spell slots and with being a half caster while you have some to spare you are also pretty limited as to what you can do with them if you dont want to run out early.
Rangers have always felt weird to me as a half caster with them being some druid/fighter/rogue mix they have set and forget type spells and while the spells are thematic they dont feel good because most are based on ranged attacks when some people like to play a melee ranger. this may have more to do with their spell list itself but they also like the artificer are encouraged to spend alot of their spells outside of combat and inside of combat with hunters mark, zepher strike to feel better in the damage area. bumping them up to a 3/4ths caster would let them get more bang for their buck rather then just being the worst parts of fighter and druid. (or maybe changing their spell list to include other fitting and stronger spells could help more)
Bards are IMO the strongest class in the game and with their casting being tied to charisma something that can be very strong even in a new persons hands they will naturally want to get it maxed if not hunt the items that let them go beyond 20. pushing them back to 3/4ths casters instead of being full casters would be a nerf but a balanced nerf without hurting them to much. even without a subclass their base kit is built around being a jack of all trades while being masters in some still making them an amazing support class. (if not to amazing)
I find the issue with rangers isn’t that they don’t have enough slots, it’s that their casting stat is a secondary stat, so they end up with low save DCs. So, players end up choosing more out of combat spells that don’t involve saves. Side note, there’s some very good melee ranger spells.
I could go on more generally about how they are much more than the worst parts of fighters and druids, but I don’t want to derail the thread.
would you mind dming me a list of the good melee ranger spells so we dont derail the threat?
Honestly, the save DC issue is overrated; you can easily hit +3 WIS out of the gate with point buy, particularly if you’re gonna be an archer and so don’t need as much CON, and you’re unlikely to cause enough saving throws in a short period of time for the 10% mod difference to have more sway than the simple dice variance.
Getting back to the topic at hand, the problem with a 3/4 caster concept is that they would likely still end up being fairly “stuck in the middle”; we already have a few full caster options with Extra Attack and some other martial features, so it seems difficult to create an option that has a smaller and slower spellcasting progression but apparently not the same martial clout as the current half casters. Unless what’s really being suggested here is that half casters need more spellcasting, which is a whole other discussion about power balance and how a class should handle.
I generally already think of Artificers more as “¾—⅔ casters” since they’re like a ½ caster + an additional level of available spells (Cantrips), and they start a level earlier and round up not down when multiclassing, and they get to cast as ritual casters too. I mean, how much more can you want? If you tack on 6th-level spells and the requisite slot progression increase then you’re into “⅘ (80%) caster” territory at that point because they will literally have access to 4/5 of the spell levels (C—6th/C—9th), and would require the slot progression to match. If you take away cantrips to compensate then people are gonna look at you like 🤨. The artificer essentially is the template for a ”¾ caster” like you’re looking for.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
What would a 3/4 caster progression look like? I assume a new spell level every 3 class levels?
so…
Class 1 = Spell 1
Class 4 = Spell 2
Class 7 = Spell 3
Class 10 = Spell 4
Class 13 = Spell 5
Class 16 = Spell 6
Class 19 = Spell 7
??
Please, no additional maths for figuring out spells slots when multiclassing 😊
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I would expect something like this:
Known ——————-Spell Slots per Spell Level-——————
Level Spells 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th
1st 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2nd 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3rd 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4th 4 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
5th 4 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
6th 5 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 0
7th 6 4 3 2 0 0 0 0 0
8th 7 4 3 2 1 0 0 0 0
9th 8 4 3 3 1 0 0 0 0
10th 9 4 3 3 2 0 0 0 0
11th 9 4 3 3 2 0 0 0 0
12th 10 4 3 3 2 1 0 0 0
13th 10 4 3 3 3 1 0 0 0
14th 11 4 3 3 3 2 0 0 0
15th 11 4 3 3 3 2 0 0 0
16th 12 4 3 3 3 2 1 0 0
17th 12 4 3 3 3 2 1 0 0
18th 13 4 3 3 3 2 1 1 0
19th 13 4 3 3 3 2 1 1 0
20th 14 4 3 3 3 2 1 1 1
*Known Spells applies to the Ranger build type for this example
I personally don't think a 3/4 caster build is needed. I feel the like real benefit of being a full caster over the half caster is the 6th through 9th level spells. Yes, the full caster progresses at a quicker pace but the access to 6th level and higher slots is what really separates the groups.
The way the game is set up now, there is only one 5th level spell different between the full and half caster at level 20. So the only way to add more spell slots to create a 3/4 caster is to give them access to the 6th level and higher spell slots. I don't think the non-full caster classes should have access to the higher level spell slots.
What you suggest would be (assuming you intend for them to also get access to cantrips too), more like a 9/10 caster, not a ¾ caster. You’re correct about access to 6th-level and higher spells, which is precisely why ½ casters cap out at 5th-level spells. If one were to create a type of caster part or half way between the distribution that Artificers get and what a full caster gets, it would have to cap with 6th-level spells and slots, or at absolute most, a single 7th-level spell and a single 7th-level slot at 20th level.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
If there were such a thing as this theoretical¾ caster, it couldn’t possibly ave a table with any more spell levels & slots than this at the absolute most:
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
id imagine a 3/4ths caster to be capped at 7th level spells. also youre right theres alot of power in the higher leveled spells but also the suggested half casters would get alot more out of their 1st and 2nd levels spells without fear of needing a nap so often
Yeah, if you expand the spoiler in my last post you can see the full spell progression table I came up with. I capped it at 7th-level.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
i noticed that after i reloaded the page lol
I prefer 2/3 caster to 3/4 because 2/3 means a consistent 'gain a spell level every 3 levels'. If we go with a rule of 'round up' (which is what actual subclasses seem to do), we get
Rangers also have an excellent selection of spells that either don't have saving throws, or the saving throw is secondary.
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.
That’s pretty darned close to what I had come up with more or less. I also went with getting a new spell level every 3 levels. I just have the incremental increases of the number of slots for each individual spell level happening a little slower, and I was generous and gave them a fourth 2nd-level spell slot after a while. But the overall gist is roughly about the same give or take. I’m curious what you imagine for number of cantrips and spells known is.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
honestly besides the way artificer get their spells i think you did a great job IamSposta do you mind if i use that chart?
Thanks. Not at all. By all means if you think it helpful. All I ask is that if you publish it anywhere you credit me or give me a shoutout as a creative contributor or something. I’m tryin’a get my name out there as a designer and would appreciate the plug. If you don’t publish and only use it for yourself then all I ask is for feedback on how well it works. Deal?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting