The distribution of Arcane & Divine classes in the PHB

[Sirdar]

The distribution of Arcane and Divine classes in the PHB looks like:


Full Caster (class): Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard
Half Caster (class): None
Third Caster (sub-class): Fighter (Eldritch Knight), Rogue (Arcane Trickster)

Full Caster (class): Cleric, Druid
Half Caster (class): Paladin, Ranger
Third Caster (sub-class): -
Personally I think there are way to many caster classes. I think Bards are akward as full casters and the Sorcerer and Warlock class should be merged and rewritten from scratch using the spell point variant. But most of all, I really miss an arcane half-caster class that would mirror the Paladin class. Thus I would rather have something like:


Full Caster (class): Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard
Half Caster (class): Swordmage
Third Caster (sub-class): Rogue (Arcane Trickster, Bard/Entertainer)
Comments: The Swordmage (or what the class should be called) would contain sub-classes such as Eldritch Knight, Hexblade and Skald (i.e. Valor Bards).

Full Caster (class): Cleric, Druid
Half Caster (class): Paladin
Third Caster (sub-class): Ranger (some subclass)
Comments: Aragorn is no spell-slinger, don't force my ranger to be a half-caster! Give me some cool class and sub-class features instead.
Now, I didn't have any D&D experience until I started play 5e a couple of years ago, so nothing is holy due to tradition for me. If Bards didn't exist as a player class in the PHB or if they were a Rogue sub-class I wouldn't have thought that it was odd. I do think it is odd that they are full casters though.

Feedback? I guess I want the community to tell me how wrong I am (and why). :smallwink: But most of all I would like to know if there is an explanation to why there is no arcane half-caster class? Has there been such a core class in previous editions?

[Cybren]

You're falling into all sorts of traps, like "D&D Rangers should be Aragorn" and "there should be perfect symmetry in all things"

[Klorox]

You're falling into all sorts of traps, like "D&D Rangers should be Aragorn" and "there should be perfect symmetry in all things"

It's funny, I started playing in AD&D 1e and my biggest criticism of 3e (and beyond) is that everybody has the same XP chart, so now an attempt needs to be made to balance each class with each other. Back then, magic users, paladins and rangers took a lot longer than thieves and clerics to level up, for example.

So yes, WotC is attempting to create symmetry between all the classes.

Back to the OP: I don't think 5e distinguishes between arcane and divine magic anymore. Each class gets its own spell list.

[Khrysaes]

It's funny, I started playing in AD&D 1e and my biggest criticism of 3e (and beyond) is that everybody has the same XP chart, so now an attempt needs to be made to balance each class with each other. Back then, magic users, paladins and rangers took a lot longer than thieves and clerics to level up, for example.

So yes, WotC is attempting to create symmetry between all the classes.

Back to the OP: I don't think 5e distinguishes between arcane and divine magic anymore. Each class gets its own spell list.

They do thematically. mechanically it is how they "know" their spells.

Clerics, Druids and Paladins prepare a number of spells per day from their entire spell list, with a number based on spell casting stat and class level.

Wizards prepare spells from their book.

all others "Know" their spells, a static number, and can't easily be changed.

The 3 "divine" casters preparing their spells in such a manner is similar to how it was in 3.5 when they prayed and the gods granted them their spells. They just get a smaller list, and can use them in whatever slots they have available if not below the spell's level.

I also agree that the ranger should not innately be a spell caster. I think that it should be more of a skirmisher, with constant movement and hitting, with a subclass option to gain casting ability. Something akin to say... Arcane Archer? oh wait, they gave that to fighters, even if ranger's are supposed to be the iconic bow users...

[Sirdar]

You're falling into all sorts of traps, like "D&D Rangers should be Aragorn" and "there should be perfect symmetry in all things"

No, I just prefer my Ranger spell-less. If all Rogues were half-casters I would not like that either.

But I do prefer some more symmetry. The Paladin is so good as a single class and I would really appreciate an arcane class similar to that. I think the Eldritch Knights would be much more attractive as a half-caster (without a third attack). Bladelock and Valor Bards comes with some frustration because the full caster aspect must limit their melee capability. Reducing them to half-casters could be just the thing needed.

[Khrysaes]

No, I just prefer my Ranger spell-less. If all Rogues were half-casters I would not like that either.

But I do prefer some more symmetry. The Paladin is so good as a single class and I would really appreciate an arcane class similar to that. I think the Eldritch Knights would be much more attractive as a half-caster (without a third attack). Bladelock and Valor Bards comes with some frustration because the full caster aspect must limit their melee capability. Reducing them to half-casters could be just the thing needed.

I wouldn't quite call Bladelock's full Casters.

Or any warlock.

They do get up to 9th level spells, but.. they are an odd one, more unique than any traditional full caster.

[Millstone85]

But most of all I would like to know if there is an explanation to why there is no arcane half-caster class?
I don't think 5e distinguishes between arcane and divine magic anymore. Each class gets its own spell list.The distinction is explained on page 205 of the 5e PHB, and it matches the OP's lists.

It is however pure fluff. Spell lists are indeed defined by class, and there is no mechanic for getting out of tune with your divine source of power (unless you are a paladin, because screw that class, right? :smallsigh:).

And that might indeed explain why there is no arcane half-caster or divine third-caster class.


Now, I didn't have any D&D experience until I started play 5e a couple of years ago, so nothing is holy due to tradition for me. If Bards didn't exist as a player class in the PHB or if they were a Rogue sub-class I wouldn't have thought that it was odd. I do think it is odd that they are full casters though.In this game of swords, spells and skills, I expect a class that falls right in the middle. Jack of all trades, master of none, but oftentimes better than a master of one. And that has traditionally been "the bard".

So I did expect to find the class in the PHB, but I am also surprised by it being a full caster.


the Sorcerer and Warlock class should be merged and rewritten from scratch using the spell point variant.Not a bad idea. Fluff-wise, at least, I like having the option of saying "I got aberrant/draconic/fey/fiendish powers from an accident/ancestor/pact", and it is technically already there, so why two classes?

[Sredni Vashtar]

Now, I didn't have any D&D experience until I started play 5e a couple of years ago, so nothing is holy due to tradition for me. If Bards didn't exist as a player class in the PHB or if they were a Rogue sub-class I wouldn't have thought that it was odd. I do think it is odd that they are full casters though.

Why? Why is it odd for you to have Bards as a full caster? I've heard arguments about it before, but most are seated in the paradigm that Bards weren't full casters in past editions. You claim to not have that mentality, so what is it about Bards in 5e makes it odd to you that they're full casters?

[Sirdar]

The distinction is explained on page 205 of the 5e PHB, and it matches the OP's lists.

It is however pure fluff. Spell lists are indeed defined by class, and there is no mechanic for getting out of tune with your divine source of power (unless you are a paladin, because screw that class, right? :smallsigh:).

And that might indeed explain why there is no arcane half-caster or divine third-caster class.

Please explain, I'm not sure I understand. Would an arcane half-caster be too powerful without an oath? Do you mean that it is strange that Clerics (and Druids and Rangers) don't have an oath that they must follow to keep their powers since the (strong) Paladin class is motivated by their oath (that holds them back)?


In this game of swords, spells and skills, I expect a class that falls right in the middle. Jack of all trades, master of none, but oftentimes better than a master of one. And that has traditionally been "the bard".

So I did expect to find the class in the PHB, but I am also surprised by it being a full caster.

That sounds reasonable, but have Bards always been full casters? Or is it a 5e thing?


Not a bad idea. Fluff-wise, at least, I like having the option of saying "I got aberrant/draconic/fey/fiendish powers from an accident/ancestor/pact", and it is technically already there, so why two classes?

Yes, it would not be the easiest class to design, but it should be doable.

[Sirdar]

Why? Why is it odd for you to have Bards as a full caster? I've heard arguments about it before, but most are seated in the paradigm that Bards weren't full casters in past editions. You claim to not have that mentality, so what is it about Bards in 5e makes it odd to you that they're full casters?

Because the meaning of the word Bard. Wizard, Mage, Sorcerer and Warlock are all words that imply 'magic user'. Bard is a word that imply story telling and/or music. So I can imagine a Bard in a fantasy game being able to perform some magic, but not that they should rival the Wizard, Sorcerer and Warlock.

[D.U.P.A.]

Bard was actually a half caster in d&d next. But then it was promoted to full caster, as a half caster felt a bit useless.

[Jorgo]

I play with druid, ranger, and barbarian counted as "primal" classes; wizard, bard, and warlock as "arcane" classes, and cleric, paladin, and sorcerer as "divine" classes. There isn't enough variety on the divine spell list, and all my sorcerer PCs give themselves a "touched by god" origin anyway without this little rule.

[Sirdar]

I also agree that the ranger should not innately be a spell caster. I think that it should be more of a skirmisher, with constant movement and hitting, with a subclass option to gain casting ability. Something akin to say... Arcane Archer? oh wait, they gave that to fighters, even if ranger's are supposed to be the iconic bow users...

My thinking exactly!


Bard was actually a half caster in d&d next. But then it was promoted to full caster, as a half caster felt a bit useless.

Ok, so Bards were half-casters in the play test as well. I find it interesting that WOTC upgraded them to full casters instead of trying to balance them against the Paladin class.

[Jacquerel]

The warlock already has an entirely unique spell system that differentiates it from other casters, why throw that out in favour of spell points?

[Millstone85]

Please explain, I'm not sure I understand. Would an arcane half-caster be too powerful without an oath? Do you mean that it is strange that Clerics (and Druids and Rangers) don't have an oath that they must follow to keep their powers since the (strong) Paladin class is motivated by their oath (that holds them back)?You seem to have missed my main point and then got my secondary remark exactly backward. :smalltongue:

First, I was commenting on what Klorox said, and largely agreeing. The arcane/divine division of spellcasting isn't a big deal in this edition. So we got third-casters that all happen to be arcane and half-casters that all happen to be divine, and WotC probably thought "So what?".

And no, heck no, I do not see the paladin as a class that would be stronger than others if not for the constant threat of falling. It is indeed strange that no other divine spellcaster got such a mechanic, but the right thing to do would have been to keep it a matter of fluff for all of them.


That sounds reasonable, but have Bards always been full casters? Or is it a 5e thing?I am playing the Baldur's Gate video games, which are based on 2e, and here the bard can only cast 1st-to-6th-level spells.

Then again, the cleric and druid are similarly limited to 1st-to-7th-level spells.

It seems full casters were rarer back then.


The warlock already has an entirely unique spell system that differentiates it from other casters, why throw that out in favour of spell points?Regaining expended mana on a short rest would feel just as unique if it were spell points instead of spell slots.

[Zorku]

Because the meaning of the word Bard. Wizard, Mage, Sorcerer and Warlock are all words that imply 'magic user'. Bard is a word that imply story telling and/or music. So I can imagine a Bard in a fantasy game being able to perform some magic, but not that they should rival the Wizard, Sorcerer and Warlock.
I don't get what you mean here. Are you saying that playing music is more like swinging a sword than like doing the song (verbal component stuff with a specific tone, pitch, and maybe timing) and dance (somatic component movements, and handling materials or a spell focus,) that arcane casters perform to cast spells?

Like, if they put guitar string on an actual axe or something I guess I'd see it, but a bard with some maracas seems way closer to how the arcane casters all work.

Or is playing music supposed to be some totally separate thing from magic, that does similar things to arcane magic without being arcane, while still being exactly as thoroughly shut down by a silence spell?

[Khrysaes]

Regaining expended mana on a short rest would feel just as unique if it were spell points instead of spell slots.


I think that would actually increase the power of the warlock.

Warlock gets a limited number of spell slots. All of them at their maximum level. Spell points would allow them to break up those slots into smaller slots so they dont ALWAYS have to cast at their maximum level.

by 17th level its 4 5th level slots. not counting their 1 slot/1 spell known of 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th.

This means that they can cast a limit of 4 spells per short rest. BUT all of them will be at a 5th level slot.

Giving them spell points based on just 4 5th level slots, as by the dmg, they of course would have less spell points than the other casters, but it would also enable them to cast more spells at lower level, because by the Point method they just spend a number of points based on the level of the spell.

I am also rambling and not explaining myself.

[Mortis_Elrod]

I think that would actually increase the power of the warlock.

Warlock gets a limited number of spell slots. All of them at their maximum level. Spell points would allow them to break up those slots into smaller slots so they dont ALWAYS have to cast at their maximum level.

by 17th level its 4 5th level slots. not counting their 1 slot/1 spell known of 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th.

This means that they can cast a limit of 4 spells per short rest. BUT all of them will be at a 5th level slot.

Giving them spell points based on just 4 5th level slots, as by the dmg, they of course would have less spell points than the other casters, but it would also enable them to cast more spells at lower level, because by the Point method they just spend a number of points based on the level of the spell.

I am also rambling and not explaining myself.

I think you're missing what hes saying. If you combine the sorcerer and warlock it wouldn't work the same as the warlock before, so there's no way to know if it WOULD be stronger, it all just depends on how the class would be designed. I kinda agree that they should just combine the two into some sort of ...bloodmage. (Power comes from the blood, either through ancestry or bloodpacts or a mix of both like the 3.5 warlock).

[Khrysaes]

I think you're missing what hes saying. If you combine the sorcerer and warlock it wouldn't work the same as the warlock before, so there's no way to know if it WOULD be stronger, it all just depends on how the class would be designed. I kinda agree that they should just combine the two into some sort of ...bloodmage. (Power comes from the blood, either through ancestry or bloodpacts or a mix of both like the 3.5 warlock).

Oh, I understood that part. I was just responding to the idea of using spell points on a warlock. If it was out of context of the intent, then I must apologize. However, that segment I had quoted was on its own at the very end. Although I didn't read through the entirety of the thread and all of the posts before hand. Just warlock with spell points would enable them to cast more than 4 spells per short rest. While the spells may not all be 5th level, the mechanic would grant the warlock improved versatility at the very least because they could decide how many spell points to invest into their spell, which they can't do currently with their slots.

I don't think warlock and Sorc should be combined. I like the idea of two separate classes for the way they gain power. One has it innately within their body. One gets it from bargaining with an external powerful entity. They have interesting separate mechanics that make choosing between them a meaningful choice for the players to make. HOWEVER, it isn't unreasonable to theme that your sorcerer bargained for his power, or that a warlock has theirs in their blood. The separation is due to mechanics.

I also don't think Ranger's should be forced to take spells. I think it should be a subclass, and they should get druid/wizard cantrips in that subclass depending on the theme of it. Ranger is the only spellcaster class that gets spells without taking a subclass that I am dissatisfied with. Revised ranger is an improvement, but I still hate the spells. The Spell-less variant in UA is a piss poor patch option, that is worse than the spells, unless you only take a few levels of ranger. It is good in combining in multiclass with a battlemaster though.

[dejarnjc]

I don't get what you mean here. Are you saying that playing music is more like swinging a sword than like doing the song (verbal component stuff with a specific tone, pitch, and maybe timing) and dance (somatic component movements, and handling materials or a spell focus,) that arcane casters perform to cast spells?

Like, if they put guitar string on an actual axe or something I guess I'd see it, but a bard with some maracas seems way closer to how the arcane casters all work.

Or is playing music supposed to be some totally separate thing from magic, that does similar things to arcane magic without being arcane, while still being exactly as thoroughly shut down by a silence spell?

I think you're willfully ignoring the point. The point stated was that outside of dungeons and dragons (and similar games), the word "BARD" is not really associated with spell-casting.


Personally, I would have preferred that the bard have a completely unique system that is similar to spell-casting but is not actually spell casting. Something that really highlights the importance of a bard singing, or using an instrument, or reciting poetry, or delivering speeches. As it is, that's all fluff. You could play a bard that does none of those things just as effectively as a bard that does all of those things.


And yes I understand that this would probably be difficult to do mechanically and also would be difficult to balance but I can wish for it anyway.

[Millstone85]

I think you're missing what hes saying.
If it was out of context of the intent, then I must apologize.Actually, it is Khrysaes who got my meaning.


the Sorcerer and Warlock class should be merged and rewritten from scratch using the spell point variant.
The warlock already has an entirely unique spell system that differentiates it from other casters, why throw that out in favour of spell points?
Regaining expended mana on a short rest would feel just as unique if it were spell points instead of spell slots.It is possible that Sirdar and Jacquerel were talking about using the DMG's spell-point rules as applied to the sorcerer, especially since these rules actually leave out the warlock.

But I have seen the spell-point warlock discussed before, and I agree it would solve many of the perceived problems of the class.

[Beelzebubba]

I am playing the Baldur's Gate video games, which are based on 2e, and here the bard can only cast 1st-to-6th-level spells.

Then again, the cleric and druid are similarly limited to 1st-to-7th-level spells.

It seems full casters were rarer back then.

Well, divine casters *were* full casters. Divine spells only went up to 7th level in 2E, but the 7th level spells were the same as the ones you find in 9th level today. 3E was obsessed with symmetry and consistency.

[Millstone85]

Well, divine casters *were* full casters. Divine spells only went up to 7th level in 2E, but the 7th level spells were the same as the ones you find in 9th level today. 3E was obsessed with symmetry and consistency.I see it now. According to BG's manual, Gate is both a 9th-level arcane spell and a 7th-level divine spell ("wizard" and "priest", actually, not to be confused with the mage and cleric classes).

And I see why the next edition would have that obsession. This is a mess.

[lunaticfringe]

Bards are less stuffy (Pseudo) Intellectual Scholar types who can do awesome things like Read & Write. By the Laws of For Some Reason or Other that means you can **** with the laws of Physics in Fantasy. I mean what else are they supposed to do? Science? Guffaw. Get stabbed or flogged for being a smart ass?

Spelless Bard
Hey you are worse at Combat in every single way, but hey, you play a mean lute. So what if anyone from any class could potentially do the same thing just as well if they really felt like it.

Bards are kinda dumb so reskin the Song crap and make them Witches, Hedge Wizards, Magicians, Magi, or What Have You. The Technical School to a Wizard's University.

[Unoriginal]

if not for the constant threat of falling.

The only way to "fall" in 5e is to deliberately go out of your way to do it. You have to break your oath knowingly, then do no effort to repent or earn forgiveness.

[Sirdar]

It is possible that Sirdar and Jacquerel were talking about using the DMG's spell-point rules as applied to the sorcerer, especially since these rules actually leave out the warlock.

But I have seen the spell-point warlock discussed before, and I agree it would solve many of the perceived problems of the class.

I can only speak for myself, but yes that was what I was thinking.

[Sirdar]

I think you're willfully ignoring the point. The point stated was that outside of dungeons and dragons (and similar games), the word "BARD" is not really associated with spell-casting.

This is exactly what I meant.

If someone asked me to create a Bard class for a new fantasy game, I would never make a class with as much magic potency as the Wizard class in that game.

[cotofpoffee]

I've always liked the idea that Bards express their magic through art. There are a few good fantasy characters out there that have such a profound connection to art that it seems to have magical abilities in how it can affect others. Bumping up to literal magic isn't too much of a big step.

I'm also curious as to people's opinions on spell-less Rangers. In 5e Ranger suffer from a lack of identity. Removing their spells would literally make them indistinguishable from ranged Fighters and Rogues. Is there really a need for spell-less Rangers when those two classes exist?

[Khrysaes]

I've always liked the idea that Bards express their magic through art. There are a few good fantasy characters out there that have such a profound connection to art that it seems to have magical abilities in how it can affect others. Bumping up to literal magic isn't too much of a big step.

I'm also curious as to people's opinions on spell-less Rangers. In 5e Ranger suffer from a lack of identity. Removing their spells would literally make them indistinguishable from ranged Fighters and Rogues. Is there really a need for spell-less Rangers when those two classes exist?

That is part of the problem.

First, the class has nothing iconic to it, other than beast master, and the beast master in the PHB is so bad it isn't worth it.

Second the spells, other than hunter's mark, the best ones are utility, which fight for the hunter's mark's concentration, or are archery only. basically forcing the best rangers to be ranged, which is the better fighting style because TWF is bad. The utility spells are basically druid spells.

And without spells, its a worse fighter or rogue. Especially the spell less variant in UA.

Revised ranger makes it better, but it is still bad.

TL:DR, Its exclusive spells basically force the player to be ranged, the non exclusive ones and some exclusive fight with Hunter's mark, which is basically required to compete in damage. Abilities are gotten earlier in other classes, and are also better in the other classes, and aren't locked to a subclass. Lackluster non scaling abilities for the ranger otherwise, I would say with the exception of Revised Ranger Natural explorer.

I would say that the Revised Ranger with Spell-Less from UA, is a good for a 2-4 level dip on a battle master fighter or rogue if you are okay with giving up the capstone extra attack, So long as you are also a deepstalker. The more levels, the worse it is, especially since the Spell-less doesn't compete with Battlemaster fighter or Spell ranger, but for a dip it is better than the caster.

Natural explorer and favored enemy: PHB, are situational and campaign dependant. The revised ranger's are much better, especially natural explorer, the favored enemy is still situational.

You get vanish at level 14, revised gives you fleet of foot at level 8, these are basically worse rogue cunning actions, a level 2 ability.

you have to go hunter to keep up with damage of a rogue at low levels, and it falls off later, It does keep up with fighter at low levels too, but also falls off.

You dont get the same defensive abilty as a rogue until level 15, and then only if you chose that subclass, and ONLY if you are a hunter.

PHB hide in plain sight and Primeval awareness are pretty trashy. Revised Ranger improves them a lot though.

Land's stride is so useless it was just combined with natural explorer in the revision.

Feral senses is useful.. but not comparatively so at level 18. Foe slayer is one of the worse capstones in the game.

[cotofpoffee]

That is part of the problem.

First, the class has nothing iconic to it, other than beast master, and the beast master in the PHB is so bad it isn't worth it.

Second the spells, other than hunter's mark, the best ones are utility, which fight for the hunter's mark's concentration, or are archery only. basically forcing the best rangers to be ranged, which is the better fighting style because TWF is bad. The utility spells are basically druid spells.

And without spells, its a worse fighter or rogue. Especially the spell less variant in UA.

Revised ranger makes it better, but it is still bad.

TL:DR, Its exclusive spells basically force the player to be ranged, the non exclusive ones and some exclusive fight with Hunter's mark, which is basically required to compete in damage. Abilities are gotten earlier in other classes, and are also better in the other classes, and aren't locked to a subclass. Lackluster non scaling abilities for the ranger otherwise, I would say with the exception of Revised Ranger Natural explorer.

I would say that the Revised Ranger with Spell-Less from UA, is a good for a 2-4 level dip on a battle master fighter or rogue if you are okay with giving up the capstone extra attack, So long as you are also a deepstalker. The more levels, the worse it is, especially since the Spell-less doesn't compete with Battlemaster fighter or Spell ranger, but for a dip it is better than the caster.

Natural explorer and favored enemy: PHB, are situational and campaign dependant. The revised ranger's are much better, especially natural explorer, the favored enemy is still situational.

You get vanish at level 14, revised gives you fleet of foot at level 8, these are basically worse rogue cunning actions, a level 2 ability.

you have to go hunter to keep up with damage of a rogue at low levels, and it falls off later, It does keep up with fighter at low levels too, but also falls off.

You dont get the same defensive abilty as a rogue until level 15, and then only if you chose that subclass, and ONLY if you are a hunter.

PHB hide in plain sight and Primeval awareness are pretty trashy. Revised Ranger improves them a lot though.

Land's stride is so useless it was just combined with natural explorer in the revision.

Feral senses is useful.. but not comparatively so at level 18. Foe slayer is one of the worse capstones in the game.
I'm okay with the fact that the Ranger is focused on ranged. Considering the Paladin, Barbarian, and Monk are all more or less melee exclusive, I don't see what's wrong with making the Ranger the class that's focused on ranged. Even Fighters, who are great at ranged fighting, have far more abilities that only work for melee or are more beneficial for melee. I don't think it's bad that a class is focused on one type of fighting more than another. I remember playing Pathfinder, where Rangers were excellent at both ranged and melee, and in that edition, the Fighter was outshone by the Ranger so much that there was little point in playing a Fighter. Classes that are more focused than general allows more room for each class to excel in a niche.

TWF being bad is not on the Ranger. It's bad for every class (except for the Rogue, but they don't care about the damage of the off-hand attack, only the extra Sneak Attack chance).

I'm not really here to argue. I agree that the Ranger is the weakest class. I just don't think it's so weak it's useless, like some say. It suffers more from abilities that don't feel satisfying rather than a significant lack of power. I believe even the Beastmaster competes well in DPR when you actually math it out - someone did, but I might be wrong. But I am curious as to why people want a spell-less Ranger when it's pretty much the one thing that's keeping it's identity from being assimilated into the Fighter and Rogue.

Your point about Ranger's list being a mix of ranged only spells and Druid control spells could easily be taken to the Paladin. It mostly only have melee-only smiting spells that compete with its Divine Smite for usage with a combination of defensive buffing Cleric spells. No one really complains about why the Paladin has spells, though, since the class is strong and feels great to play.

[Khrysaes]

I'm okay with the fact that the Ranger is focused on ranged. Considering the Paladin, Barbarian, and Monk are all more or less melee exclusive, I don't see what's wrong with making the Ranger the class that's focused on ranged. Even Fighters, who are great at ranged fighting, have far more abilities that only work for melee or are more beneficial for melee. I don't think it's bad that a class is focused on one type of fighting more than another. I remember playing Pathfinder, where Rangers were excellent at both ranged and melee, and in that edition, the Fighter was outshone by the Ranger so much that there was little point in playing a Fighter. Classes that are more focused than general allows more room for each class to excel in a niche.

TWF being bad is not on the Ranger. It's bad for every class (except for the Rogue, but they don't care about the damage of the off-hand attack, only the extra Sneak Attack chance).

I'm not really here to argue. I agree that the Ranger is the weakest class. I just don't think it's so weak it's useless, like some say. It suffers more from abilities that don't feel satisfying rather than a significant lack of power. I believe even the Beastmaster competes well in DPR when you actually math it out - someone did, but I might be wrong. But I am curious as to why people want a spell-less Ranger when it's pretty much the one thing that's keeping it's identity from being assimilated into the Fighter and Rogue.

Your point about Ranger's list being a mix of ranged only spells and Druid control spells could easily be taken to the Paladin. It mostly only have melee-only smiting spells that compete with its Divine Smite for usage with a combination of defensive buffing Cleric spells. No one really complains about why the Paladin has spells, though, since the class is strong and feels great to play.

The paladin has a strong standing even without the individual spell selection, the ranger does not.

I agree that TWF is bad in general, and didn't mean to imply that it was ranger exclusive.

Everyone, or at least I, wants a spell less ranger because the entire class feels patchwork and lackluster. It has no iconic ability or mechanic that makes it stand out. Rogues get Sneak attack, fighters get more extra attacks and action surges, Battlemaster is probably the iconic mechanic for them otherwise. Paladins get their smite.

To be honest, the ranger was always a bit like a wilderness bard, some cross between a fighter/druid/rogue. The 5e version however just makes it so disappointing mechanically, while bard is so good its considered one of the best classes in the game.

I personally would like to play a Ranger that has a skirmish mechanic similar to the Scout in 3.5 with 4 minimum subclass options. I would probably pull class features from the Rogue Scout in UA. Maybe fighter monster slayer as well.

Beastmaster,

Arcane Archer(for arcane spells),

a spirit summoner/guardian thing(for druid spells),

and one focused on slaying a designated foe(take hunter's mark, have favored enemy bonus apply to
marked thing, and probably some defensive things. monster slayer is a good impression of it.)

Maybe deepstalker as well.

the monster slayer and deepstalker would need their spell list additions replaced with a mechanical boost.

I would take the hunter subclass and distribute the abilities into the base ranger.

This would make a ranger that has an iconic mechanic, fits its role as a a skirmisher. If you give it some way to avoid OA, like the swashbuckler's then it would be good as either melee or ranged.

[cotofpoffee]

The paladin has a strong standing even without the individual spell selection, the ranger does not.

I agree that TWF is bad in general, and didn't mean to imply that it was ranger exclusive.

Everyone, or at least I, wants a spell less ranger because the entire class feels patchwork and lackluster. It has no iconic ability or mechanic that makes it stand out. Rogues get Sneak attack, fighters get more extra attacks and action surges, Battlemaster is probably the iconic mechanic for them otherwise. Paladins get their smite.

To be honest, the ranger was always a bit like a wilderness bard, some cross between a fighter/druid/rogue. The 5e version however just makes it so disappointing mechanically, while bard is so good its considered one of the best classes in the game.

I personally would like to play a Ranger that has a skirmish mechanic similar to the Scout in 3.5 with 4 minimum subclass options. I would probably pull class features from the Rogue Scout in UA. Maybe fighter monster slayer as well.

Beastmaster,

Arcane Archer(for arcane spells),

a spirit summoner/guardian thing(for druid spells),

and one focused on slaying a designated foe(take hunter's mark, have favored enemy bonus apply to
marked thing, and probably some defensive things. monster slayer is a good impression of it.)

Maybe deepstalker as well.

the monster slayer and deepstalker would need their spell list additions replaced with a mechanical boost.

I would take the hunter subclass and distribute the abilities into the base ranger.

This would make a ranger that has an iconic mechanic, fits its role as a a skirmisher. If you give it some way to avoid OA, like the swashbuckler's then it would be good as either melee or ranged. Your point about the Paladin spells is exactly my point. No one has any issue with the Paladin having spells because the class is good and whole. The Ranger is not, so people pick on the spells despite it not being the problem part of the Ranger. WOTC doesn't seem to be willing to let go of the spells. In fact, they seem to be playing around with giving Rogues and Fighters wilderness archetypes to scratch the spell-less Ranger niche. It makes more sense that ripping spells away from the Ranger and giving it back in certain subclasses.

For me, I feel that spells are a vital part of the Ranger. I definitely would be unhappy if they were removed. Besides, the Revised Ranger seems to be the way that the class is moving anyways, so I don't see too much point in homebrewing fixes to the Ranger. If they made anymore changes I'd just like to see some minor tweaks to the Revised Ranger, like giving the Hunter and Beastmaster subclasses a list of additional spells known, like a lot of the other UA Ranger subclasses are getting.

If they made any more changes I'd like to see Favored Enemy removed altogether and more of an emphasis on Initiative. Favored Enemy is a gimmick. If you give any substantial power it feels bad when you aren't accessing it. It'd be cool to see something like getting your Wisdom modifier to Initiative and a blanket Advantage on attacks on the first round, and second at higher levels. Kinda like what the Revised Ranger has now, just expanded as you level up. It would solidify the Ranger as the guy who hits fast and hits hard, but with less staying power than other classes like the Fighter or Barbarian. The Rogue has the skirmisher playstyle down anyways so I wouldn't make that the Ranger's speciality.

[Tanarii]

No, I just prefer my Ranger spell-less. If all Rogues were half-casters I would not like that either. So you've only ever played 4E Rangers? Those were the only edition in which Rangers were spell-less.

Edit: in regards to Bards, 5e really kinda has evolved from their roots to a degree. But if you look closely, you can still see the Fighter/Thief/Druid with some musical magic origin. Especially for College of Lore, which is for all intents and purposes the 'Druidic Loremaster/Diplomat' Bard archetype. With College of Valour being the 'Norse Skald/Diplomat' archetype.

[Mortis_Elrod]

I think the ranger needs a bit of an overhaul, but if the revised ranger is anything to go off of wotc is at least in the right direction. Ranger needs a better identity, losing spells will likely not solve that unless it leaves room for more or better base line features. Favored enemy should be let go, in favor of ranged smite or something that could be used on anyone and not just one thing. If expertise is in more than one class i don' see why smite or cunning action can't be in more classes. I'm rambling now but i would make ranger's cunning action have Dodge instead of hide (deepstalker could get hide added).

I don't know, but i want the ranger to be more distinguishable baseline.

[Khrysaes]

Revised ranger is moving in the right direction, however, the chassis of the class is still just bad. I understand that Wizards will be keeping the casting capability of the ranger. I just find it sad that I can get more of what I consider a ranger by taking 8 fighter/12 rogue, or maybe 6/14.

TL:DR:
Give new abilities at level 1 and 6 in addition to favored enemy, maybe remove the damage from Favored Enemy.

One could be a non concentration Hunter's mark. could be per rest or use spell slots like smite(which would allow it to work well with multiclassing, like smite.)

One, or the same one with Hunter's mark as an option, could be an effect like channel divinity. A number per rest, gains new options via subclasses.

Spells are prepared like a paladin's not known. Archetypes could add spells to available list.

Extra attack to all rangers, not tied to archetype.

Cunning action at level 8, remove fleet of foot and vanish.

Some sort of defensive or initiative based ability at 14.

Remove requirement for Favored Enemy from Foe Slayer, or change capstone to archetype based.

I also think paladin archetypes get better features in general, but they have their tenets they are supposed to follow.


If we go by the UA: modifying classes, where the spell-less ranger was introduced by UA, it says this:

"Much of the ranger’s extra potency in combat comes from spells such as hunter’s mark and from the class features granted by the ranger archetypes. The 3rd-level feature in each archetype usually either provides a raw increase in combat power, or grants the ranger greater combat versatility

Favored Enemy was intentionally designed to provide no combat bonus, because the ranger’s strength in combat should not rely solely on the discretion of the Dungeon Master or the circumstances of the adventure. Although the Hunter archetype’s 3rd-level ability does rely somewhat on the nature of the foes being fought, Favored Enemy is generally useful in the interaction and exploration pillars of the game."

Where, if you look at paladin's it says this:

" Paladins derive a large amount of their combat potency from the Divine Smite class feature. Since the paladin can wait until after determining if an attack hits (or is a critical hit) to use the smite, the character is capable of intense bursts of damage. Be wary of tinkering with this feature, because it is fundamental to the paladin’s combat strength.

Many of the paladin’s class features are defensive in nature, protecting both the paladin and his or her allies from harm. Swapping out defensive class features for offensive ones starts to alter the feel of the paladin, perhaps in ways you did not intend."

A ranger's and paladins abilities are fueled by spells, in different ways. Most of the ranger's combat potential comes from those spells, but the spells also fight with each other. But even with spells, the Paladin has better features post level 8. The ranger's are lack luster and would be better served by multiclassing 8+ rogue, granting cunning action(two ranger abilities, and disengage as a bonus), and BOTH uncanny dodge and evasion, which the ranger only gets one of, and only if they are a hunter. not to mention the other goodies.

Not only that, but paladins are more flexible because they are able to prepare spells, and not have them known. If the ranger just did that it would be an improvement.

I don't think Favored Enemy needs to go. I don't think is substantial enough to affect anything major, and would just rather see something added to the class. The Foe Slayer capstone needs favored enemy requirement removed from it.

I would rather see hunter's mark as a usage/rest ability. Basically take the spell, give the ranger a number of uses that increase while they level, and automatically increase duration. Remove the concentration requirement. Monster Slayer's slayer eye fits this mechanic wonderfully, although it is more limited in being a once per turn or round damage.

Perhaps, remove the concentration requirement, and have it work like smite, spend a slot to activate it. This would lend the mechanic to work well with multiclassing, either a full caster for more/better slots, or warlock for slots/short rest.

For the later levels, maybe change the capstone to be based on the archetype chosen, much like a paladin's. combine Vanish and Hide in plain sight, at level 10, or remove vanish and fleet of foot, and give it cunning action at 8.

For level 14, grant it some sort of defensive ability, or something to affect initiative.

[Sigreid]

If Bards didn't exist as a player class in the PHB or if they were a Rogue sub-class I wouldn't have thought that it was odd. I do think it is odd that they are full casters though.



D&D bards are, and have always been based on the bards of Celtic legend. They were always powerful casters capable of healing, cursing, enchanting, influencing the weather, etc. The song of Talasin (or what survives of it) goes on at length about all manner of abilities including something to the effect of "the stars dance to my song." It may not be what you prefer, but in the context of their legendary basis full caster is very appropriate.

[Tanarii]

Revised ranger is moving in the right direction, however, the chassis of the class is still just bad. I understand that Wizards will be keeping the casting capability of the ranger. I just find it sad that I can get more of what I consider a ranger by taking 8 fighter/12 rogue, or maybe 6/14.Well, that makes the root of the problem here clear then. It's that what you consider 'a ranger' has nothing to do with the D&D Ranger.

So you can either learn what a D&D Ranger archetype is, or accept that you'll either have to multiclass or homebrew or some other option to play what you consider 'a ranger'.

[Sigreid]

Your point about the Paladin spells is exactly my point. No one has any issue with the Paladin having spells because the class is good and whole. The Ranger is not, so people pick on the spells despite it not being the problem part of the Ranger. WOTC doesn't seem to be willing to let go of the spells. In fact, they seem to be playing around with giving Rogues and Fighters wilderness archetypes to scratch the spell-less Ranger niche. It makes more sense that ripping spells away from the Ranger and giving it back in certain subclasses.

For me, I feel that spells are a vital part of the Ranger. I definitely would be unhappy if they were removed. Besides, the Revised Ranger seems to be the way that the class is moving anyways, so I don't see too much point in homebrewing fixes to the Ranger. If they made anymore changes I'd just like to see some minor tweaks to the Revised Ranger, like giving the Hunter and Beastmaster subclasses a list of additional spells known, like a lot of the other UA Ranger subclasses are getting.

If they made any more changes I'd like to see Favored Enemy removed altogether and more of an emphasis on Initiative. Favored Enemy is a gimmick. If you give any substantial power it feels bad when you aren't accessing it. It'd be cool to see something like getting your Wisdom modifier to Initiative and a blanket Advantage on attacks on the first round, and second at higher levels. Kinda like what the Revised Ranger has now, just expanded as you level up. It would solidify the Ranger as the guy who hits fast and hits hard, but with less staying power than other classes like the Fighter or Barbarian. The Rogue has the skirmisher playstyle down anyways so I wouldn't make that the Ranger's speciality.

Thinking about it, I could see taking spells away from rangers and giving them nature focused invocations instead. Secrets of the deep wild that only they know. Not as flashy as spells, but reliable and repeatable.

[Khrysaes]

Well, that makes the root of the problem here clear then. It's that what you consider 'a ranger' has nothing to do with the D&D Ranger.

So you can either learn what a D&D Ranger archetype is, or accept that you'll either have to multiclass or homebrew or some other option to play what you consider 'a ranger'.

It is not only "what i consider a ranger" it is also because the ranger is mechanically bad. I prefer my rangers to have the option to cast spells, not have it be required, it certainly shouldn't be the core of the ranger's combat kit. If the spells were present, offered a bunch of variety and versatility, maybe a couple combat spells, but most of its combat power was in the class and archetypes it would be much better.

As it is, having the largest base of its combat be in spells, and it being a 1/2 caster is incredibly limiting, and other options, like hell eldritch knight/arcane trickster, even if it is only a 1/3 caster is still better, since most of its combat ability is not in the spells.

The ranger's spells aren't bad as they exist, but in designing games there is such a concept as dominant strategy, and this is where balancing comes in. If everything the ranger can do can be done as well or better in some other way, then that way is dominant and would logically be chose all the time. Not everyone uses logic, so it doesn't happen all the time, but it does more often.

Mechanically, the Ranger doesn't have anything substantial that is unique to its class. Favored enemy is situational at best. Natural explorer is nice, but many of the effects can be gained through other means. Hunter's mark can be taken by vengeance paladins, and hex is similar to it. Primeval awareness is some nice interaction and exploration, but any caster with speak with animals/locate creature can do better or replicate it at limited range. Feral senses and Foe slayer are so late in the game that they may as well not be counted. Feral senses can again be replicated by spells, and foe slayer takes the limitation of favored enemy to new levels.

It needs its own unique mechanic that is flavorful and fun, and its combat shouldn't be heavily in the spells, but the spells could augment it.

Giving the ranger some druid cantrips may be a good choice too.

[Mortis_Elrod]

So been looking around to see what people have homebrewed and I found this : http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?462877-Ranger-Rework-v1-3

I think this is what I would want or something similar.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Thinking about it, I could see taking spells away from rangers and giving them nature focused invocations instead. Secrets of the deep wild that only they know. Not as flashy as spells, but reliable and repeatable.

That is possibly the best idea. Wild Secrets instead of spells. Or in addition to them. Alternatively have the ranger a prepared caster and have ritual casting. Archetypes add in to the list and you get some nice utility .

[cotofpoffee]

Revised ranger is moving in the right direction, however, the chassis of the class is still just bad. I understand that Wizards will be keeping the casting capability of the ranger. I just find it sad that I can get more of what I consider a ranger by taking 8 fighter/12 rogue, or maybe 6/14.

TL:DR:
Give new abilities at level 1 and 6 in addition to favored enemy, maybe remove the damage from Favored Enemy.

One could be a non concentration Hunter's mark. could be per rest or use spell slots like smite(which would allow it to work well with multiclassing, like smite.)

One, or the same one with Hunter's mark as an option, could be an effect like channel divinity. A number per rest, gains new options via subclasses.

Spells are prepared like a paladin's not known. Archetypes could add spells to available list.

Extra attack to all rangers, not tied to archetype.

Cunning action at level 8, remove fleet of foot and vanish.

Some sort of defensive or initiative based ability at 14.

Remove requirement for Favored Enemy from Foe Slayer, or change capstone to archetype based.

I also think paladin archetypes get better features in general, but they have their tenets they are supposed to follow.


If we go by the UA: modifying classes, where the spell-less ranger was introduced by UA, it says this:

"Much of the ranger’s extra potency in combat comes from spells such as hunter’s mark and from the class features granted by the ranger archetypes. The 3rd-level feature in each archetype usually either provides a raw increase in combat power, or grants the ranger greater combat versatility

Favored Enemy was intentionally designed to provide no combat bonus, because the ranger’s strength in combat should not rely solely on the discretion of the Dungeon Master or the circumstances of the adventure. Although the Hunter archetype’s 3rd-level ability does rely somewhat on the nature of the foes being fought, Favored Enemy is generally useful in the interaction and exploration pillars of the game."

Where, if you look at paladin's it says this:

" Paladins derive a large amount of their combat potency from the Divine Smite class feature. Since the paladin can wait until after determining if an attack hits (or is a critical hit) to use the smite, the character is capable of intense bursts of damage. Be wary of tinkering with this feature, because it is fundamental to the paladin’s combat strength.

Many of the paladin’s class features are defensive in nature, protecting both the paladin and his or her allies from harm. Swapping out defensive class features for offensive ones starts to alter the feel of the paladin, perhaps in ways you did not intend."

A ranger's and paladins abilities are fueled by spells, in different ways. Most of the ranger's combat potential comes from those spells, but the spells also fight with each other. But even with spells, the Paladin has better features post level 8. The ranger's are lack luster and would be better served by multiclassing 8+ rogue, granting cunning action(two ranger abilities, and disengage as a bonus), and BOTH uncanny dodge and evasion, which the ranger only gets one of, and only if they are a hunter. not to mention the other goodies.

Not only that, but paladins are more flexible because they are able to prepare spells, and not have them known. If the ranger just did that it would be an improvement.

I don't think Favored Enemy needs to go. I don't think is substantial enough to affect anything major, and would just rather see something added to the class. The Foe Slayer capstone needs favored enemy requirement removed from it.

I would rather see hunter's mark as a usage/rest ability. Basically take the spell, give the ranger a number of uses that increase while they level, and automatically increase duration. Remove the concentration requirement. Monster Slayer's slayer eye fits this mechanic wonderfully, although it is more limited in being a once per turn or round damage.

Perhaps, remove the concentration requirement, and have it work like smite, spend a slot to activate it. This would lend the mechanic to work well with multiclassing, either a full caster for more/better slots, or warlock for slots/short rest.

For the later levels, maybe change the capstone to be based on the archetype chosen, much like a paladin's. combine Vanish and Hide in plain sight, at level 10, or remove vanish and fleet of foot, and give it cunning action at 8.

For level 14, grant it some sort of defensive ability, or something to affect initiative.

The Favored Enemy requirement of Foe Slayer is removed from the Revised Ranger anyway. Considering that WOTC seems to be going forward with the Revised Ranger, I don't see the usefulness of discussing original Ranger.

We seem to be going off of two different ideals of what the Ranger is. I like the spell version. You clearly don't. I don't feel as if our discussions are really aligning in much. You're much more interested in a spell-less Ranger while I love the spell aspect of a Ranger. I'm not sure if we can really get much more from discussing further. The good news is that WOTC is probably going to accomodate both of us. Me in the Revised Ranger and you with the spell-less Ranger living on inside either the Rogue or Fighter. The Paladin discussion isn't really going anywhere either. I've stated twice already that I believe the Paladin is a good example of a class. The Ranger (without the Revised version) isn't. So yes, I agree with your statement about Paladin and Ranger spell lists. I have stated that already.

That being said, I disagree with your statement that Hunter's Mark should not be a spell. It's a good general option but it's not always the best option. For example, when I've played Rangers I've found myself in situations where I'll throw down an Ensnaring Strike on an enemy. The spell itself deals damage per turn almost as high as two activations of Hunter's Mark's additional damage, plus gives me advantage so I can use Sharpshooter, leading to overall higher damage. I've also been in situations where I've shut down spellcasters using Silence instead of using Hunter's Mark's increase in DPR. Hunter's Mark is a pretty nice general spell that can apply to basically every situation but it's not always the best. And I'm okay with that. If Hunter's Mark isn't concentration it just leads to it being a thing that you use every encounter without ever needing to think about it. You may as well just make it a passive ability at that point. I can also think of builds that don't use Hunter's Mark at all, like a Beastmaster that relies more on Beast Bond to increase their DPR.

Even without the Revised Ranger, the original Ranger still does competitive DPR as an archer levels 1-10. They don't get a damage increase after level 5, but other martial class don't really much damage increases either. The ones that do get pretty minor increases. It's really only levels 11-16 that Rangers fall behind in any meaningful amounts, because other martials get significant damage increases against single enemies while Rangers branch out sideways to fight multiple enemies better. That's not really that huge of a deal, considering how few adventures are run at those levels. The Ranger even catches back up at level 17 when they get Swift Quiver.

There's a reason why Revised Rangers don't get big damage increases, and when they do it's situational. That's kind of why I say Rangers suffer more from lack of satisfactory abilities rather than mechanical function. The Revised Ranger does pretty well to fix that without shaking the original Ranger up too much, because the original Ranger was pretty close to a good class.

[Tanarii]

It is not only "what i consider a ranger" it is also because the ranger is mechanically bad. There's nothing wrong with the Rangers mechanics, other than (possibly) natural explorer being too limited in scope. So the problem here is both that you don't understand the Ranger archetype, nor do you understand the ranger mechanics.

Edit: note that the mechanics not being bad or wrong has nothing to do with the possibility that you personally don't like how the Ranger mechanics work.

[Khrysaes]

There's nothing wrong with the Rangers mechanics, other than (possibly) natural explorer being too limited in scope. So the problem here is both that you don't understand the Ranger archetype, nor do you understand the ranger mechanics.

Edit: note that the mechanics not being bad or wrong has nothing to do with the possibility that you personally don't like how the Ranger mechanics work.

The ranger's mechanics work, but they are weaker than other classes of comparable types.

I also understand the ranger archetype, the ranger is in fact my favorite archetype.

The ranger mechanically as is fits into that archetype, but it is still a weaker option than other classes to do so.

A ranger is a physical ranged fighter and a skirmisher. They have a lot of overlap with the rogue. But they are supposed to be mechanically a bit sturdier, and perhaps not as sociable or capable in an urban environment.

This is managed by their fighting style, extra attack, d10 HD, and lack of social skills.

It is not that the mechanics are bad because I don't like them, it is that I don't like them because they are bad. They function, but it is imbalanced compared with the other classes that it is similar to(Fighter/Rogue/Druid/Paladin).

Edit:
Personal view of the archetype: A ranger is a wilderness survival expert and hunter. They can track, utilize terrain, and assess targets to find out information. In combat they should prefer to attack full force and get the drop on an unwary target, and if it survives, use guerilla tactics to hit and run, only to come back once more.

Websters- Ranger:
"one that ranges
one of a body of organized armed men who range over a region especially to enforce the law
a soldier specially trained in close-range fighting and in raiding tactics"

Websters-Range:
"the act of ranging about
a place that may be ranged over
an open region over which animals (such as livestock) may roam and feed
the region throughout which a kind of organism or ecological community naturally lives or occurs"

[Khrysaes]

The Favored Enemy requirement of Foe Slayer is removed from the Revised Ranger anyway. Considering that WOTC seems to be going forward with the Revised Ranger, I don't see the usefulness of discussing original Ranger.

We seem to be going off of two different ideals of what the Ranger is. I like the spell version. You clearly don't. I don't feel as if our discussions are really aligning in much. You're much more interested in a spell-less Ranger while I love the spell aspect of a Ranger. I'm not sure if we can really get much more from discussing further. The good news is that WOTC is probably going to accomodate both of us. Me in the Revised Ranger and you with the spell-less Ranger living on inside either the Rogue or Fighter. The Paladin discussion isn't really going anywhere either. I've stated twice already that I believe the Paladin is a good example of a class. The Ranger (without the Revised version) isn't. So yes, I agree with your statement about Paladin and Ranger spell lists. I have stated that already.

That being said, I disagree with your statement that Hunter's Mark should not be a spell. It's a good general option but it's not always the best option. For example, when I've played Rangers I've found myself in situations where I'll throw down an Ensnaring Strike on an enemy. The spell itself deals damage per turn almost as high as two activations of Hunter's Mark's additional damage, plus gives me advantage so I can use Sharpshooter, leading to overall higher damage. I've also been in situations where I've shut down spellcasters using Silence instead of using Hunter's Mark's increase in DPR. Hunter's Mark is a pretty nice general spell that can apply to basically every situation but it's not always the best. And I'm okay with that. If Hunter's Mark isn't concentration it just leads to it being a thing that you use every encounter without ever needing to think about it. You may as well just make it a passive ability at that point. I can also think of builds that don't use Hunter's Mark at all, like a Beastmaster that relies more on Beast Bond to increase their DPR.

Even without the Revised Ranger, the original Ranger still does competitive DPR as an archer levels 1-10. They don't get a damage increase after level 5, but other martial class don't really much damage increases either. The ones that do get pretty minor increases. It's really only levels 11-16 that Rangers fall behind in any meaningful amounts, because other martials get significant damage increases against single enemies while Rangers branch out sideways to fight multiple enemies better. That's not really that huge of a deal, considering how few adventures are run at those levels. The Ranger even catches back up at level 17 when they get Swift Quiver.

There's a reason why Revised Rangers don't get big damage increases, and when they do it's situational. That's kind of why I say Rangers suffer more from lack of satisfactory abilities rather than mechanical function. The Revised Ranger does pretty well to fix that without shaking the original Ranger up too much, because the original Ranger was pretty close to a good class.

Ahh, didn't see that in Foe Slayer on the revision, my bad.

I also agree that the earlier levels of ranger are the better ones. The ranger still needs something combat wise that is a boost at levels 1 and 6. Natural explorer on the revised ranger is nice, it is just that favored enemy is very situational, I would rather see the +x damage removed, and hell, something like fighting style moved to level 1, and something else, maybe something defensive or supportive at level 2, and offensive at level 6. I offer hunter's mark as a suggestion, but it doesn't have to be hunter's mark. If this scaled either in uses or power as the ranger leveled it would be a viable option.

[Khrysaes]

That is possibly the best idea. Wild Secrets instead of spells. Or in addition to them. Alternatively have the ranger a prepared caster and have ritual casting. Archetypes add in to the list and you get some nice utility .

I like it. If you did both you would probably want to go Warlock type spells/short rest then. only a max of 4 5th level slots. Some of the weaker spells could be added as invocations though. Or invocations as 1/long rest.

Druid cantrips.

Ritual casting for the applicable spells.

[Lombra]

Actually there's an UA for a spell-less Ranger class. If you are looking only at the PHB then nothing prevents you from picking a fighter and make it proficient with survival, animal handling and nature, boom a ranger without spells, throw in some rogue for sneakyness and expertise and you are done really. A human rogue/ fighter can have 7 skills proficiencies and expertise two of them, there's all the flavour that anyone could need.

PS: simmetry is a very vicious trap, having all the options isn't always the right choice.

[Sirdar]

Actually there's an UA for a spell-less Ranger class. If you are looking only at the PHB then nothing prevents you from picking a fighter and make it proficient with survival, animal handling and nature, boom a ranger without spells, throw in some rogue for sneakyness and expertise and you are done really. A human rogue/ fighter can have 7 skills proficiencies and expertise two of them, there's all the flavour that anyone could need.

PS: simmetry is a very vicious trap, having all the options isn't always the right choice.

That is actually a very good way to make a 'spell-less ranger' without homebrew. I could see myself play such a character.

Regarding symmetry: My main problem with the current distribution of Arcane classes is the lack of a half-caster class with extra attack. Based on the standard critic of Eldritch Knights, Valor Bards and Bladelocks I'm quite certain that such a class would be highly appreciated. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it became one of the most played classes.

[Cybren]

Hasn't it been demonstrated that it's objectively false to claim the ranger is weaker than the other clssses? The problem with the ranger is lack of thematic cohesion and a weird functioning beast master, not actually being too weak

[JackOfAllBuilds]

Would those who were interested in and talking about bards maybe give a peak and critique (peach) at my bard tweak I posted earlier today? Here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?524859-Bard-homebrew-PEACH!-More-journeyman-less-spellcaster)
I modeled it as a half caster because I agree with some that they felt too wizardly with full casting

[Tanarii]

Hasn't it been demonstrated that it's objectively false to claim the ranger is weaker than the other clssses? The problem with the ranger is lack of thematic cohesion and a weird functioning beast master, not actually being too weakYes, it has. Multiple time. It's very common for people that just don't like the Ranger class features, for whatever reason, to make this many times proven bogus claim.

[Khrysaes]

Yes, it has. Multiple time. It's very common for people that just don't like the Ranger class features, for whatever reason, to make this many times proven bogus claim.


Hasn't it been demonstrated that it's objectively false to claim the ranger is weaker than the other clssses? The problem with the ranger is lack of thematic cohesion and a weird functioning beast master, not actually being too weak

Anyone have some references for this? I would be interested in looking at it.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Hasn't it been demonstrated that it's objectively false to claim the ranger is weaker than the other clssses? The problem with the ranger is lack of thematic cohesion and a weird functioning beast master, not actually being too weak

If the problem is a lack of themaic cohesion, how would you solve this? I've seen similar problems in other games where a class technically functions but lacks identity or satisfaction in execution, in those games they either build a new identity by reworking class or at the very least add something that pulls it all together.

I would suggest something similar. You could say the Revised Ranger is just that, but i think the problem of a lack of thematic cohesion is still there.

[Cybren]

If the problem is a lack of themaic cohesion, how would you solve this? I've seen similar problems in other games where a class technically functions but lacks identity or satisfaction in execution, in those games they either build a new identity by reworking class or at the very least add something that pulls it all together.

I would suggest something similar. You could say the Revised Ranger is just that, but i think the problem of a lack of thematic cohesion is still there.

I was speaking more from the perspective of what people criticizing the ranger are actually saying even when they use language like "it's too weak". I don't really have any problems with the ranger. I know Mearls said during his recent AMA that were he starting over from scratch he'd make there be more parallels between how the ranger and paladin are structured, which is fair, given that they're both divine half-casters

[Mortis_Elrod]

I was speaking more from the perspective of what people criticizing the ranger are actually saying even when they use language like "it's too weak". I don't really have any problems with the ranger. I know Mearls said during his recent AMA that were he starting over from scratch he'd make there be more parallels between how the ranger and paladin are structured, which is fair, given that they're both divine half-casters

sure you may be fine with the current ranger, but i was asking a legitimate question. I don't have problems with the ranger, i just have the one. And it's a big enough problem for me and apparently some others that I want to find a reasonable solution. For me that solution is, for right now anyway, the homebrew i linked in one of the past posts. But i wonder what other people have come up with.

[Cybren]

You literally asked me how I would solve it. My answer is I wouldnt, but I don't dislike mearls offhand ideas as well

[MrStabby]

I have to agree with those who don't see the point of a spell-less ranger. You have it already in a bunch of other classes. Just because the class name doesn't match the character description doesn't mean you can't play the concept. I actually think that some of these ranger fans would be happier without the "ranger" class in the game just so they could feel they were not rejecting it.

As for the bard, making half casters is tough. You are as good as the best thing you can do each turn, be it an attack action or casting a spell. If the attack action is worse than the same of a fighting class then they need to rely on spells to bring them up to par. Classes like the paladin do this by allowing spell slots to be spent on snoring - bringing their attack action up. If bards were half casters then they would need better ways for their spells to help in combat alongside attacks.

This is not impossible, but would require some very careful balance. An ability to move some spell casting to a bonus action or to allow bard-song to mimic a spell but without concentration could work... I have even explored the idea of bards having only lower level spells but casting them all at-will (no healing obviously).

[Sirdar]

I have to agree with those who don't see the point of a spell-less ranger. You have it already in a bunch of other classes. Just because the class name doesn't match the character description doesn't mean you can't play the concept. I actually think that some of these ranger fans would be happier without the "ranger" class in the game just so they could feel they were not rejecting it.
I do want a ranger class for the class features that distinguish them from fighters/rogues.


As for the bard, making half casters is tough. You are as good as the best thing you can do each turn, be it an attack action or casting a spell. If the attack action is worse than the same of a fighting class then they need to rely on spells to bring them up to par. Classes like the paladin do this by allowing spell slots to be spent on snoring - bringing their attack action up. If bards were half casters then they would need better ways for their spells to help in combat alongside attacks.

So true! But they did a great job designing the Paladin and I believe an arcane half-caster with 'Eldritch Knight mechanics' (i.e. attack-spell-attack-spell pattern) would be awesome. The EK has to wait to long for its defining abilities as it is now. For the Bard as half-caster I think you had some really interesting ideas:


This is not impossible, but would require some very careful balance. An ability to move some spell casting to a bonus action or to allow bard-song to mimic a spell but without concentration could work... I have even explored the idea of bards having only lower level spells but casting them all at-will (no healing obviously).

A decent attack combined with a bonus action inspiring Bard-song (or spell) could do the trick.

[ATHATH]

I am playing the Baldur's Gate video games, which are based on 2e, and here the bard can only cast 1st-to-7th-level spells.
Fixed that for you.

[Millstone85]

Fixed that for you.Uh? Both the manual and the wiki put the limit at 6th level.

[Theodoxus]

Re: Ranger, it definitely feels like there's about 3495890345 different ideas as to what a Ranger is. Since everyone brings their own bias, it's impossible to please everyone - though I agree that the book-standard Ranger is kinda meh, I doubt you'll ever come to any consensus. I think the latest revision is too OP er, frontloaded - a Revised Ranger 1/Rogue 2 combination becomes the chassis for any non-pure caster build that wants a ton of utility and options in combat.

I think it's this lack of consensus and cohesion as to what people think a Ranger should be that essentially forces WotC's hand in the PHB version - picking a hodge-podge of ideas from the playtest feedback to get a 'well, it's as close as we can get to what people want, and we're on the bleeding edge of publication - we'll tinker with it more post production'.

Build a consensus of what Ranger should be and do, and then fiddle with the abilities... turning dials and throwing ideas at the wall to see what sticks is not very conducive to a class that's fun to play - if mechanically sound.

Re: Bard, wasn't the 3.5 prestige class (I don't recall the name) that granted 9th level casting pretty much the 'must have' build for Bards specifically because it granted 9th level casting? I'm sure a lot of playtest replies were pushing the 5e version in that direction specifically because of that.

As a musician, I've been a fan of bards since I've played fantasy games - TTRPGs and CRPGs (from the original Bards Tale, through Dark Age of Camelot on through Baldur's Gate and beyond). It would be nice if the 5e take on the bard was closer to the AD&D version, rather than a weird love child between Sorcerer and Wizard... but I'm ok with the current incarnation...

As to the OP - One could make a half-caster EK-esque type class. I would unbind the EK as written from the school restrictions, and place a similar restriction on the new class. (So EKs could pick any wizard spell of a level they can cast - if they want to play like beguilers, fine - if blasters, ok - if necromancer... sure.)

The new class would probably have emphasis on Abjuration and Evocation like EK currently - though I could see... Colleges, er Archetypes, er Paths, er Schools, no... Traditions! yeah, that emphasize other wizardry schools. The most common tradition would be Eldritch, using Abj/Evo spells to protect and nuke... but there'd be a hidden tradition of necromongers who dabble in Necromancy and Conjuration. Another tradition that's less known to the wider world that utilizes Illusion and Transmutation...

The nice thing is, you as a player, with your DM, could devise new traditions... if each School granted a couple of abilities, you could mix/match them in 28 combinations. It'd be fun to develop the base class along with what each School in the Traditions provides, probably using the Wizard specialization as a guide.

[Khrysaes]

Re: Ranger, it definitely feels like there's about 3495890345 different ideas as to what a Ranger is. Since everyone brings their own bias, it's impossible to please everyone - though I agree that the book-standard Ranger is kinda meh, I doubt you'll ever come to any consensus. I think the latest revision is too OP er, frontloaded - a Revised Ranger 1/Rogue 2 combination becomes the chassis for any non-pure caster build that wants a ton of utility and options in combat.

I think it's this lack of consensus and cohesion as to what people think a Ranger should be that essentially forces WotC's hand in the PHB version - picking a hodge-podge of ideas from the playtest feedback to get a 'well, it's as close as we can get to what people want, and we're on the bleeding edge of publication - we'll tinker with it more post production'.

Build a consensus of what Ranger should be and do, and then fiddle with the abilities... turning dials and throwing ideas at the wall to see what sticks is not very conducive to a class that's fun to play - if mechanically sound.

Re: Bard, wasn't the 3.5 prestige class (I don't recall the name) that granted 9th level casting pretty much the 'must have' build for Bards specifically because it granted 9th level casting? I'm sure a lot of playtest replies were pushing the 5e version in that direction specifically because of that.

As a musician, I've been a fan of bards since I've played fantasy games - TTRPGs and CRPGs (from the original Bards Tale, through Dark Age of Camelot on through Baldur's Gate and beyond). It would be nice if the 5e take on the bard was closer to the AD&D version, rather than a weird love child between Sorcerer and Wizard... but I'm ok with the current incarnation...

As to the OP - One could make a half-caster EK-esque type class. I would unbind the EK as written from the school restrictions, and place a similar restriction on the new class. (So EKs could pick any wizard spell of a level they can cast - if they want to play like beguilers, fine - if blasters, ok - if necromancer... sure.)

The new class would probably have emphasis on Abjuration and Evocation like EK currently - though I could see... Colleges, er Archetypes, er Paths, er Schools, no... Traditions! yeah, that emphasize other wizardry schools. The most common tradition would be Eldritch, using Abj/Evo spells to protect and nuke... but there'd be a hidden tradition of necromongers who dabble in Necromancy and Conjuration. Another tradition that's less known to the wider world that utilizes Illusion and Transmutation...

The nice thing is, you as a player, with your DM, could devise new traditions... if each School granted a couple of abilities, you could mix/match them in 28 combinations. It'd be fun to develop the base class along with what each School in the Traditions provides, probably using the Wizard specialization as a guide.

Building a EK esque half caster I would probably bas it around the Duskblade/Beguiler/Spellthief classes from 3.5, and Maybe put arcane archer here as a archetype. The idea would be to infuse their weapons with spell effects right? or cast spells as part of an attack? The classes mentioned have the capabilities to do that, and would be good reference points when starting. The archetypes could be the different fighting style focus' too. Melee DPS/Tank/Skirmisher/Ambusher/Archer or some combination there in.

[Tanarii]

I think it's this lack of consensus and cohesion as to what people think a Ranger should be that essentially forces WotC's hand in the PHB version - picking a hodge-podge of ideas from the playtest feedback to get a 'well, it's as close as we can get to what people want, and we're on the bleeding edge of publication - we'll tinker with it more post production'.
Whereas I feel that the PHB Ranger is the way it is because that hews VERY strongly to what D&D Rangers have been thematically since at least 1e. With plenty of 'newer' (as in 2e & 3e) elements such as the move to a more skirmisher/skills oriented character (in 3.5), and fairly early on gaining spells (2e), and explicit weapon combat (UA/2e) or non-spell-gained animal companion (3e I believe).

The two 'mistakes' they made are is Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer are a little too focused, meaning in a generic campaign that's NOT focused on a specific enemy or specific terrain from the get go they're a little weak.

As a side note on the last, I'm fairly sure the designers envisioned that adventures would be focused on a specific enemy / terrain for about a tiers worth of adventures. Which is why you get them at level 1, 6, and 10/14. That said, I still think they're too focused, and changing the way they work in the 'revised' Ranger was a clear improvement. PHB Rangers aren't weak by any valid measuring stick, in fact if there Natural Explorer or Favored Enemy come into play, they can approach overpowered in a CaW campaign. But that's not to say there isn't room to improve them.

[suplee215]

I'm at a lost as to why a arcane caster half class is needed. I love gishes, but I feel like there are enough options. Doesn't Paladin Oath of the Crown even mention a possibility for an arcane origin? It just feels like one of those things where everyone wants a new option, even if that option might not add much when looking at the game as a whole.

[Khrysaes]

I'm at a lost as to why a arcane caster half class is needed. I love gishes, but I feel like there are enough options. Doesn't Paladin Oath of the Crown even mention a possibility for an arcane origin? It just feels like one of those things where everyone wants a new option, even if that option might not add much when looking at the game as a whole.

To be fair, a paladin or fighter subclass is likely the best solution. Especially paladin as they already get smites. Give them an oath that gives them gish spells, and a class feature that has them able to alter the smite's damage type to that of an elemental spell, or cause differing effects, and you are likely good to go.

[Theodoxus]

That's not a bad idea - since we have Arcane domain clerics, there's no reason we couldn't have an arcane focused paladin. Order of the Phoenix :smallwink:

While mechanically, Radiant smite damage is a better choice than any specific elemental energy type for the life of the paladin, if at 3rd level, they can choose the element of choice each time they smite, it grants parity - if not pulls slightly ahead, if you're facing creatures that regularly have a vulnerability to an element type.

I don't know if you'd want to grant them more Arcane Domain type spells or Light Domain type spells.. if you want more utility or blasts (I'd personally prefer utility, but that's just me...)

Really, the only problems I see with such an Oath is the Channel Divinity and the Aura at 7th... for CD, if you make it 'Elemental Weapon' akin to 'Sacred Weapon', it steps on Devotions toes. If you make it akin to War Magic, it's a much lower level than the EK ability (plus you'll need to figure out how to give the paladin cantrips...) - Though that's a much better gish ability than simply making a flaming sword or whatever... Personally, since it's of such limited use (CD being 1/rest), I'd let them cast any spell as an action and make one melee weapon attack as a bonus action and call it good.

For the Aura, Ancients already takes the defacto Arcane protection. I suppose it could instead grant advantage on saves against spells. That's a little meh, as it's arguably worse than Aura of Warding, as it does nothing against spells that target AC... And Warding is still superior as it provides double-dipping - if you save vs a Fireball, you're taking a 1/4 damage... Giving advantage to saves still at best, only halves the damage... I don't know what a good aura would be though... without making it too OP.

For 15th level, just spitballing, but maybe a Mystic Arcanum of 6th level? Or Magical Secrets, grabbing any single spell from any list from 1st-5th level? If the Aura is weaker than Warding, I'd go with the MA - if stronger, than MS...

And then for 20th level, become an elemental for 1 minute... oh, and since I'm calling it the Order of the Phoenix, as an unrelated ability, you can resurrect yourself... though there's got to be a limit on that... like after 3 days, and only once; or you take a permanent 1 point of Con loss... and must finish a long rest - or even take the detriments of the Wish spell, dropping your strength to 3 and it restores at 1 point per long rest; you can't resurrect again until your Strength is fully restored... something like that...

[apepi]

I am guessing that the Favored Soul UA is still an arcane caster or?

[Khrysaes]

That's not a bad idea - since we have Arcane domain clerics, there's no reason we couldn't have an arcane focused paladin. Order of the Phoenix :smallwink:

While mechanically, Radiant smite damage is a better choice than any specific elemental energy type for the life of the paladin, if at 3rd level, they can choose the element of choice each time they smite, it grants parity - if not pulls slightly ahead, if you're facing creatures that regularly have a vulnerability to an element type.

I don't know if you'd want to grant them more Arcane Domain type spells or Light Domain type spells.. if you want more utility or blasts (I'd personally prefer utility, but that's just me...)

Really, the only problems I see with such an Oath is the Channel Divinity and the Aura at 7th... for CD, if you make it 'Elemental Weapon' akin to 'Sacred Weapon', it steps on Devotions toes. If you make it akin to War Magic, it's a much lower level than the EK ability (plus you'll need to figure out how to give the paladin cantrips...) - Though that's a much better gish ability than simply making a flaming sword or whatever... Personally, since it's of such limited use (CD being 1/rest), I'd let them cast any spell as an action and make one melee weapon attack as a bonus action and call it good.

For the Aura, Ancients already takes the defacto Arcane protection. I suppose it could instead grant advantage on saves against spells. That's a little meh, as it's arguably worse than Aura of Warding, as it does nothing against spells that target AC... And Warding is still superior as it provides double-dipping - if you save vs a Fireball, you're taking a 1/4 damage... Giving advantage to saves still at best, only halves the damage... I don't know what a good aura would be though... without making it too OP.

For 15th level, just spitballing, but maybe a Mystic Arcanum of 6th level? Or Magical Secrets, grabbing any single spell from any list from 1st-5th level? If the Aura is weaker than Warding, I'd go with the MA - if stronger, than MS...

And then for 20th level, become an elemental for 1 minute... oh, and since I'm calling it the Order of the Phoenix, as an unrelated ability, you can resurrect yourself... though there's got to be a limit on that... like after 3 days, and only once; or you take a permanent 1 point of Con loss... and must finish a long rest - or even take the detriments of the Wish spell, dropping your strength to 3 and it restores at 1 point per long rest; you can't resurrect again until your Strength is fully restored... something like that...


Channel divinity is of limited use so while it would be earlier than war magic, its also more limited. Perhaps, allow it to deliver a spell cast through a weapon attack. Instead of Channel Divinity it is Channel Spell. This makes it use 2 resources, the channel and spell, but doesn't take a bonus action. Limit it to 1 attack per round. So they could at level 5 do 1 spell + attack, and 1 attack.

They would/could use a second one, perhaps a command/dominate elementals, much like the Oathbreaker's control undead. If not control/dominate, then something to influence them.

I think granting them the option to select which element they can use is good. Perhaps allow them to change the element of their improved smite as well. Constant 1d8 of elemental choice when they get it.

For their level 6 aura, if advantage on saves against spells wouldn't be enough, then perhaps simultaneously granting disadvantage to saves against spells to enemies. This may be too strong.

for Level 15 I wouldn't know where to begin.. Mystic arcanum or Magical secret would be good.. if we want to give the paladin cantrips, I would suggest giving it at level 3, and bumping up the other two

Level 20, I would say take Devotions Radiant Aura, and Druid Elemental Form and combine the two. For 1 minute turn into an elemental, of x element(not necrotic or radiant, but obscure ones like force or thunder or electricity would be cool), and enemies that start within range take X damage. You gain various benefits for being element of X type.

[Zorku]

I think you're willfully ignoring the point. The point stated was that outside of dungeons and dragons (and similar games), the word "BARD" is not really associated with spell-casting.YOU are willfully ignored MY point. 5e decided that things like hunter's mark are magic. It doesn't matter if a bard isn't generally pictured as memorizing Vancian arcade games that he keeps running simultaneously in his head when pointing at a guy and flashing him a glance that scream "I'm coming for you" counts as magic. Anything you do that involves a gesture, some non-conversation words, or fiddling with a trinket in a way other than inserting the pointy end into a squishy spot on your enemy, is magic in this system. If you wanna play a non-magic class (including psionic type stuff) then welcome to Champion, Berserker, Battlemaster, and Assassin. Even Thief has some arcane crap in their class features. If you play a little tune that motivates your allies? Magic. If you beat on a drum to intimidate your foes? Magic. If you recite a poem to sway some noble? Magic.

There are a lot of class paths that I don't typically think of as magical/psionic, but 5e decided that those features get rolled into the whole "the weave" thing, so every class is more magical than it was before.


snipHomebrew the system you want then.

For what it's worth, I also hold the sensibilities where I expect the bard/dancer to be it's own weird thing that's not as good at melee combat as the pure fighter types, and to have their own weird system that's a lot like magic but with no change of doing good things to enemies and bad things to allies, and being this sort of thing that they do while everyone else does the stabby stabby, pew pew... but I also expect the warlock to be operating on almost entirely different magic from the wizard, and I expect the wizard to get to do metamagic, and I expect the ranger to have their own weird system, and I don't expect monks to do any airbender stuff, and so on. These aren't necessarily good expectations to have, and they don't necessarily make for a good game, so I'm willing to try things another way.

Well, actually, I do find the new paradigm a little bit cramped. It pretty much does what it's supposed to, but the list of spells is a little too short for being such a big part of almost every class. I want a few spells that are more blatantly bardic in nature, and some elemental stuff that those airbenders obviously came up with, even if the mage school teased it apart until their graduates were able to pretty much replicate the effect. There's just a pinch of proper warlock in the spell list, but with the selection of spells that we do have it feels like all the other classes are just borrowing from wizards. The divine spells do a much better job of being representative, with a bunch of smites that are obvious paladin fare, but even though there are a bunch of arrow-y spells for rangers, it feels like they're still stealing too much conceptual material from druids.

With the new archetypes for classes sorta replicating the old idea of multiclassing, it kind of is supposed to all/mostly be shared content between these classes, except that design goal didn't quite bleed over into the flavor text, so we get this really weird peek into how the world works, but then we stumble into the scars and stitches where a limb was grafted onto the flesh golem, and it ends up being a jarring experience.

Now, more official spells could easily resolve that problem, but because the only big expansion to the list that we got was in the EE companion, this just made it worse by giving the traditional full casters a bunch of mostly sub-par new spells, but ignoring the bard and locking all of these spells away from the 1/2 and 1/3 casters.

e: I usually try to read the rest of the thread, but my trigger finger got itchy and posted this early. Nice to see that I stumble into pretty much the same view as most of the thread though.


Thinking about it, I could see taking spells away from rangers and giving them nature focused invocations instead. Secrets of the deep wild that only they know. Not as flashy as spells, but reliable and repeatable.
Ooooh.

[MrStabby]

Well I thought I would have a stab at this - haven't used the homebrewery before so I hope this works.


http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/HkbxeOyW-b

Not a final balanced version but a rough guide to what a half-casting bard would look like to me.

[Sirdar]

Well I thought I would have a stab at this - haven't used the homebrewery before so I hope this works.


http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/HkbxeOyW-b

Not a final balanced version but a rough guide to what a half-casting bard would look like to me.

Nice stab, Stabby! It looks good at a first glance. I will definitely take a proper look at the mechanics and balance of your half-caster Bard as soon as time permits. The level 6 sub-class abilities may be to powerful. A 6:th level Valor Bard can cast Hold Person and attack twice in the same turn up to 3 times before resting. Multiclass for action surge and you get a pretty decent nova. I would very much like to see a spell list for the bardsongs. There are quite a lot of concentration spells, so a list is nice (and some may not feel like bardsongs and could be removed). Do you plan to look into this? Also, I noted a misprint: Hit Dice should be 1d8. Looking forward to see your homebrew develop further.

[MrStabby]

Nice stab, Stabby! It looks good at a first glance. I will definitely take a proper look at the mechanics and balance of your half-caster Bard as soon as time permits. The level 6 sub-class abilities may be to powerful. A 6:th level Valor Bard can cast Hold Person and attack twice in the same turn up to 3 times before resting. Multiclass for action surge and you get a pretty decent nova. I would very much like to see a spell list for the bardsongs. There are quite a lot of concentration spells, so a list is nice (and some may not feel like bardsongs and could be removed). Do you plan to look into this? Also, I noted a misprint: Hit Dice should be 1d8. Looking forward to see your homebrew develop further.

Ah, cool. Well I guess I can work it up and stick it in the homebrew section.

I won't argue that it isn't too powerful at level 6 - hold person 3 times per rest as a bonus action is almost as good as 3 action surges. Level 6 abilities are like the sorcerer being able to fireball for 8d6+5 damage or firebolt three times per turn (twinned and quickened) for 6d10+10 damage per turn, a lore bard (current) being able to cast any level 3 spell in the game, a human fighter picking up the third of pole arm mastery, great weapon fighting and sentinel, a monk being able to stunning strike 6 times per short rest or a paladin having their passive aura of protection online. Capabilities should be of a similar standard, and this was something I had seen as being one of the defining abilities of the subclass. I may have to moderate some other aspect of the character - not to nerf the ability, but to ensure that the class as a whole isn't overpowered at level 6 (not all classes are equal at all levels and again I don't have a problem with level 6 being a relatively strong level for this class).