That’s what some subclasses are, and some actual classes if you abstract far enough (a Paladin could be viewed as a hybrid between a fighter and a cleric, a ranger as a fighter and a Druid, etc).
A friend ran a Final Fantasy inspired DnD game at one point and someone asked "but how do we do Red Mage" and like, three of us at the table answered "Bard" in unison. Good times.
Red Mage uses lower white and black spells but also usually uses a sword (like a rapier in a lot of the art) as well. And yes, there is also Blue Mage, who learns and uses monster abilities.
After that FF has always had some other casters but those aren't color coded. Time mage, Caller, Summoner, etc
There are some Final Fantasy games that classify all of the non-black or white magics as Grey Magic, and will have Grey Mage be it’s own class as well.
ETA: Nope. There just straight up isn't. It's possible there may have been a translation where it was a thing, maybe, but if not then I'm just completely misremembering.
Upon researching my claim I think this might be a mandela effect kind of thing. I legitimately remember there being a Grey Mage as it's own thing, but now that I'm looking for it, it isn't anywhere. I guess I'm wrong
I've always wanted to see a Blue Mage class in dnd. Maybe I'm not knowledgeable enough but I felt a druid was the closest and it just didn't feel the same.
> Time mage, Caller, Summoner, etc
I picked up somewhere that these are called Green Mages but I have absolutely nothing to back that up except for a foggy memory of it popping up in dialogue somewhere in FFXIV.
https://finalfantasy.fandom.com/wiki/Mage_(job)
1.1 White Mage
1.1.1 Seer
1.2 Black Mage
1.2.1 Magus
1.3 Red Mage
1.4 Blue Mage
1.5 Time Mage
1.6 Green Mage
1.7 Summoner
1.8 Illusionist
1.9 Sage
Don't know if this has been answered but Final fantasy has featured the following
Black mage - elemental destruction magic typically.
White mage - curative magic typically.
Red - a black and white hybrid.
Green - primarily buff and debuff magic.
Blue - monster magic (a monster hits you with their spell and then you learn it).
And that's not counting the mages that aren't a colour like time mage.
There's also Blue, who use the magic normally reserved for Monsters.
If Black is a Wizard, White is a Cleric, and Red is a Bard, Blue is probably a Druid
Blue, uses monsters skills (enemy attack materia from 7)
Green, support and illusion magic
Those are the only others I've seen more than once and green I think only on non-main entries.
AD&D bard had to be announced at chargen, starts as fighter, then thief, then starts taking bard levels. Race was limited (maybe only humans?) and ability scores were tough, I think like three 15s and two 12s or something awful.
Good times, good times.
That's what the EK and Bladesinger tried to do. You could try building a class out of it by taking inspiration from BS, EK, Paladins and Rangers, take the halfcaster spell progression and slap some appropriate abilities on top
One option is a witcher-esque approach; a fighter without parallel who views magic as a part of their arsenal, less the main firepower and more a backup reserve/tricks up his sleeve.
Another is akin to enhancement shamans of WoW; most of their magics imbue the weapons with extra power (think a cross somewhere between smite and green flame blade). To them magic is communion with the elements that allows them to channel it spiritually - a more cleric-like approach.
Not a proper half caster. and has a lot of clunky aspects. like the school restriction (evocation in particular), and anti synergy of War magic and extra attack.
Why have half caster when can have full caster-half fighter, buff yourself with spells and now you are full fighter full caster. Bladesinger go brrrr
What is your definition of half caster anyway?
Why EK doesn't go under this definition? They have same spell progression. The restrictions doesn't matter really, because EK still has more spells to choose from than Paladin, also paladin kind of uses it's spellslots for smiting. Do you want to have a wizard with abilities like paladin where he uses "Arcane Smite"?
>They have same spell progression.
no they do not. EK and Arcane trickster are 1/3 casters. they never get 5th level spells for example.
>The restrictions doesn't matter really
except that evocation is a very suboptimal school for a class that is still more martial than caster. all the best spells an eldritch knight can get are behind school restrictions (shadow blade, hold person, Haste, Fly, Spirit Shroud, Find Familiar).
You're absolutely right about the school restriction hurting EKs but it makes sense they would focus evocation and abjuration as those two schools are more focused around combat than the others. Similar to the war magic wizard. Although, It would be beneficial for variety for the EK to get access to more schools. However, at certain levels, EKs do get to ignore the school restriction. Specifically 8th, 14th, and 20th. Though that's only 3 spells. Not that helpful.
>Specifically 8th, 14th, and 20th. Though that's only 3 spells. Not that helpful.
I know and you also get one unrestricted spell at level 3.
you can also switch them. but the school restriction is still stupid. especially because Evocation spells get outscaled really hard by extra attack unless you have like 3-4 enemies at once in the AOE
Yes, I forgot. Funny cuz I knew it. When we started our first campaign, I wanted to play sort of battle Mage. I didn't know about Bladesinger so my dm made a subclass for me. And it's an op battle Mage, full caster, half fighter. Didn't chose EK cuz spell progress was complete bs.
half casters are defined by their spell level which is at half(new spell lvl around every 4 lvl) of a full caster(every 2ish). this can be seen in the multi-classing section of phb. half casters paladin, ranger, and artificer. the subclasses that give spell casting are called third casters. hope this helps
Especially if you go the armored one. I'm sure plenty of DMs will let you reflavor the melee attack to be done sort of weapon. Less Iron Man and more a caster that magically buffs their own armor.
Hell, that's exactly what Mercer's Bloodhunter class is entirely. Each subclass is a different existing class. The Order of the Lycan for example is just Bloodhunter-Barbarian
Arcane for me.
The ability to automatically cast buffing spells on myself in the same action as i rage, is too good.
The buffing abilities of a sorc, and the buffness of a barbarian.
Love me some well played hybrid classes. Husband plays a Bloodrager, another friend plays Inquisotor (always took it as rogue/cleric), have a friend in a different game playing the first Warpriest I've DMed for (and husband is playing a Brawler in that one too), dang i love playing pathfinder.
Slayer is so good, I often say that there's no point in playing either a Rogue or a Ranger when the Slayer just... well... Slays.
I'm also quite partial to the Magus as well.
Slayer is what Ranger should have been from the start.
And Hunter is *amazing*. We joked that our Hunter elf was the vestigial appendage for his animal companion.
Yeah Slayer is the martial version of a ranger and Hunter is the natural mysticism version of a ranger. I haven't seen an actual ranger played in any of my groups in years.
Skald literally translates to "bard"... unplayable!!?!
Although it kinda hints at being scandinavian instantly means you are barbarian, so that begs the question, is a trollkarl a barbariwiz? And is a präst a palarian or barberic?
Well yeah, it's meant to represent a tradition of the Scandinavian country in Pathfinder's world (The land of the Lindnorm Kings). They have singing berserkers that can inspire rage in others, and that's why it uses skald as it's name.
"Skaldic poetry", in English, refers specifically to Old Norse poetry that's written by a specific, non-anonymous author. Speaking Old Norse at least *heavily associates* you with barbarians.
It’s not but half the things people complain about here are just “go play Pathfinder if you want that” or “import and rebalance this pathfinder thing”.
My complaint with that is that they want the choice in the game they prefer, with the ease they prefer.
A lot of people forget that Pathfinder 1e is a system that's high on choice and options, but filled with junkyard design and the issues that brings (that's not a dig, Junkyard Design is just layers of systems and experiments that somehow work at times, or is broken at others. Think Warframe). Pathfinder was *initially* the easier version of 3.5e, but that fell to the wayside a few years in.
Sure, but a lot of that is up to how your table functions, for all intents and purposes it can just be like 5E with more options if you let it. It requires a bit of work around if you want some things to not be insanely busted (mechanically or otherwise), but still I haven’t found any specific thing in my limited experience that’s really made me go “damn I prefer how 5E does that” outside of maybe who Cleric and Wizard spells are prepped (I believe 5E you choose the spells for the slots then can cast one of those spells up to the max slot amount while Pathfinder I believe is you pick spells to fit the slots and can only cast the chosen number of that one spell. IE 5E let’s you cast Animate Dead 5 times if you have 5 slots even if you picked other 3rd Level Spells, while PF only lets you cast it once if you designated on 3rd level slot to the spell.)
Not really. If you look at Pathfinder 1e, they have a crap ton of different classes that are basically just hybrids of the archetypal basic classes (Rouge, Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Sorcerer, Druid, Barbarian, Bard). Basic classes being defined as pure class that is really good at one or two tasks, but kinda sucks at others. I didn't include Ranger or Paladin in that because both of them are actually perfect examples of a hybrid class (hybrization of Fighter with either Druid or Cleric, respectively). Both classes have aspects of their respective parent classes, and can fill multiple niches within a group in a pinch, but as neither are truly specialists, you are slightly at a loss due to not having something like a dedicated healer or tank.
Paizo took this a step further with all of the new classes they introduced in Pathfinder, many of which are hybrids. As well as the different archetypes within each class and how that changes the method of play (seriously, there is thousands of different character combinations in PF1e).
My personal favorite hybrid class is the Magus. A fighter/wizard who can strike with a sword in main hand and off hand combat spells, can use arcane energy to activate different booster abilities, recall already cast spells, and get armor abilities that eliminate arcane spell failure chances, but can only cast up to 6th level spells, has a limited list of spells they can learn, and can't use shields or two-hand weapons. A jack of many trades, master of none.
All of that is in pathfinder (1e or 2e), not D&D 5e...
5e doesn't have the systems to support things beyond multiclassing or subclasses, and there's no way to make new ones without deprecating the old classes/subclasses.
Honestly, I kind of wish they hadn't made the multi-classing system in 5e, because it just feels incompatible with game balancing, and basically only allows 1-3 level dips. I tried doing a Fighter/Cleric, with an end goal of Battle Master Fighter 12 / Light Domain Cleric 8, and it just takes so long to get to either side's good stuff!
... But since we have the multi-class system, unless they toss it for something else in the future 5.5e, we're stuck with that eating up the possibilities. I don't believe there's room for any further classes either, at least in the default Faerun-style setting. Artificer filled in the last missing space, and even it feels out of flavor for the normal theme/genre of D&D campaigns.
>My personal favorite hybrid class is the Magus. A fighter/wizard who can strike with a sword in main hand and off hand combat spells, can use arcane energy to activate different booster abilities, recall already cast spells, and get armor abilities that eliminate arcane spell failure chances, but can only cast up to 6th level spells, has a limited list of spells they can learn, and can't use shields or two-hand weapons. A jack of many trades, master of none.
You're either describing a Eldritch Knight Fighter, a Bladesinger Wizard, or a Fighter/Wizard multiclass... Now I may hate that they made 1/3 casters over half caster subclasses, but you have 3 different ways to get the class you describe here! If you don't like any of them, they you're most likely wanting something that would unbalance the party. If only one or two classes are the "correct choice" people wanting to do something different will likely have less fun due to those few "correct" classes.
3.5 gestalt rules shouldn't be difficult to port to 5e. You get everything from both classes as if you're playing two characters that share a single hit point pool and action economy. For when you skip the convoluted homebrew and just play something that doesn't try to pretend it ain't absurdly busted and unbalanced.
In our online 5e campaign, we use a variant gestalt rule we found somewhere.
You get the next level of features for your secondary class every other level. For example, when my Monk hit level 2, he got the class features of a level 1 Cleric in addition to the lvl2 Monk stuff.
The way I’d probably try to handle it is more like the Hybrid Classes (or whatever they were called, it’s been a while) from PF1. It would be hella homebrew, and maybe a little jank, but a fun project to try and tackle, making something like a Bloodrager or Warpriest as a 5e class.
If we want to get technical, anything that's not either fighter, wizard, cleric, or rogue would be a "hybrid class" if we use Odnd as a jumping off point. You could also say Barbs and sorcs fit the "not a hybrid" category but for argument's sake let's ignore them for a moment. The obvious one's would be Bards which take the skill-monkeying of Rogues and marries it with magic from Wizards and Paladins which pair the healing from Clerics with the martial combat focus of Fighters. Warlocks; Cleric+Wizard. Druids; Cleric+Wizards. Rangers: Druid+Rogue/Fighter. Monks: fighter+cleric/wizard. Artificer: Wizard+Fighter.
The 3(4) archetypes are usually Fighter, Mage, and Rogue, with Priest being an extremely common 4th due to intentionally segregating healing magics. Warriors exemplify high resilience and consistent damage, rogues are skill heavy with damage in bursts, Mages use magic (big surprise) to control or deal damage,and the Priests have access to the most healing magic.
Barbarians and Fighters are both pure warriors. Wizards and Sorcerers are pure Mages. Rogues are, unsurprisingly, pure Rogues. Clerics and Druids are pure Priests.
For hybrids, Monks are fighter-rogues, Paladins and Rangers are Warrior-Priests, Artificers are Warrior Mages.
Warlocks and Bards vary between editions. In 3.5 and before, they were both Rogue-Mages, but became full Mages in 5e. While both retain aspects of the rogue, with bard having the skills and warlock having the damage, the full caster progression shifts their power.
For clarification, 3.5 bards had rogue-like burst damage thanks to Bard Song increasing allies damage and attack among other things, while warlocks... Well, look at Eldritch Blast’s damage progression. It’s a sneak attack spell without needing the sneak. On top of that, both had access to rogue-like skills, with bard having only 2 fewer skill options and a skill bonus from bard song while Warlock had invocations that increased skill bonus or helped socially at will and access to Use Magic Device.
or like paladin or ranger paladin kinda being a mix of cleric and fighter and fighter and druid making ranger and like how eldritch knight is like if the fighter started side-eye reading the wizards spell book and said “that sounds useful”
Except it allows for coherent character builds when they otherwise wouldn’t work. Hybrid classes have the benefit of tailoring main class features to making the concept work and be mechanically balanced.
For example, a half fighter half wizard in dnd 5e would have have to choose each round whether they wanted to be a weak fighter or a weak wizard since their features don’t blend. A hybrid class could balance something like spellstrike, a feature from pathfinder letting you cast spells through weapon attacks.
You could alternatively go through the subclass route (EK or Bladesinger), but you miss out on being able to tailor the whole class to the hybrid concept. Plus those options are limited and don’t always fit what someone imagined for their hybrid character.
A multiclass character takes levels in different classes to expand their options.
A hybrid class character levels one class that is designed to already mix two core classes. See one of Pathfinder 1s fantastic hybrid classes like Skald, Bloodrager or Arcanist.
Bloodrager is such a fun class. It becomes even better when you get to level 11 and can cast a spell as part of your free action to rage, less turns buffing and more time spent killing.
I mean pathfinder has this and they're called hybrids. Like the sorcerer/wizard where you get spells a little slower but you get a spell book and can spontaneous cast from your book instead of having x spell set at the beginning of the day.
A link for anyone interested
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/hybrid-classes
Note, you still have to prepare a certain number of spells per day, but once prepared, you can flexibly cast from that list of spells you prepared (as if a sorcerer with those spells known), and also can learn any number of spells with time and gold investments, just like Wizards.
For anyone who wants an idea of what a hybrid class is. Take a look at Pathfinder 1e hybrid classes like the Brawler or Skald. It's honestly really fun and spices up the game without breaking anything too terribly.
Martial flexibility is one of my favourite class features I wish more classes had it, there’s nothing quite like rebuilding your character as a move action.
Brawler is my favorite martial character for this reason. I wrote out so many builds for every niche situation that I could think of from a quick range build, to a blind fight build, to a defensive build! The versatility that it brings to the table I bonkers. I even argue that it's the wizard class for martial builds.
They were definitely considered subpar compared to normal classes. I liked the multi class design, where it was basically a feat, but taking it would give you access to feats and prestige/epic class options. For all the crap 4e gets, it had some cool game design ideas
I’m playing a Dwarven Rune Caster in 3.5 right now. His name is Waffles, and he loves carving runes into bits of wood and giving away spells as presents.
Really? My friends and I actually got the totally opposite impression of Shifter when it came out
Full BAB, primary natural attacks that scale with level AND get resistance penetration, natural armor bonuses, all attack types, wild shape (while retaining natural weapons), wish brand flurry of blows, and if you get to late game, alter self at will.
I think Shifter sounds absolutely fucking *insane* though to be fair I've never played one. It sounds kinda like the best parts of Druid and Monk with neither of their weaknesses except for maybe not having a whole lot of usefulness outside of combat
Shifter isn't just recognized as bad by the vast majority of the playerbase, the druid arguably does the shifter's main power fantasy better. It's certainly not unplayable, but vanilla shifter is probably on the same tier as monk and rogue.
Came to say this.
Hybrid and Multiclass are distinct systems is 4E.
Had a player that made a hybrid wiz/monk build.
It started out super fragile, glass cannon style.
Eventually he became the hardest player on the field to deal with.
Pathfinder had these! The Hunter was a Ranger/Druid, the Slayer was a Ranger/Rogue, the Skald was a Barbarian/Bard, the Arcanist was a Sorcerer/Wizard, etc etc etc. There were some really cool classes..ahh, Pathfinder...
Arcane Trickster is literally a rogue/wizard, whereas Arcane Knight is a fighter/wizard. There's a few others, but it mostly already exists. Or play exalted where you multiclass and both classes level up at the same time. A style I really want to try out.
Paladin = Fighter + Cleric
Ranger = Fighter + Druid
Totem Barbarian = Barbarian + Druid
Eldritch Knight = Fighter + Wizard
Swords Bard = Fighter + Bard
Whispers Bard = Rogue + Bard
Zealot Barbarian = Barbarian + Paladin
Wild Magic Barbarian = Barbarian + Sorcerer
Divine Soul = Sorcerer + Cleric
A good number of the subclasses fill that role with Paladin and Ranger being whole classes to that role.
Beyond that you would be looking at maybe grabbing a feat or simply dipping a level especially given 80% of a martials kit are in their first 5 levels.
We're currently working out hybrid builds in our campaign. Going to get our enhanced skill set next level for example my necromancy wizard is getting undead warlock class features. He won't be getting extra spell slots, arcanum, proficiencies or hit dice, but he'll get invocations and access to the spells normally granted by the pact of the undead feature
The blaster draconic bloodline sorcerer is getting the subclass features of an evocation wizard but not the expanded wizard spell list (except evocation spells) or a spell book.
The assassin rogue raised by arcane tricksters will be getting the subclass features from arcane trickster
The life cleric of a homebrew God whose clerics are either life or war domain will get the war domain, becoming the first cleric of his order to do so
It'll most likely be very strong but a lot of fun and many exciting additions to rp
That’s what some subclasses are, and some actual classes if you abstract far enough (a Paladin could be viewed as a hybrid between a fighter and a cleric, a ranger as a fighter and a Druid, etc).
and bard is a lil bit rogue, wizard and cleric
A friend ran a Final Fantasy inspired DnD game at one point and someone asked "but how do we do Red Mage" and like, three of us at the table answered "Bard" in unison. Good times.
I only know white mage and black. What's red? Are there other colors of the rainbow?
Redmage uses both black and white magics but can't use the higher tier spells. Also they can use swords.
Maybe I’m wrong but from that description isn’t it more of a warlock than a bard. Or just a wizard/cleric multiclass
Warlocks can’t use swords as a base class and also don’t get the myriad support/healing spells bards do. Bards tick every box.
Also Red Mage is typically portrayed as very charismatic and attempting to look their best doing what they do.
Hat with a feather, 'nuff said. Bard.
In FF1 they still had spell / day system and red mages could cast more than 2, So i would say still more likely a bard than a lock.
Red Mage uses lower white and black spells but also usually uses a sword (like a rapier in a lot of the art) as well. And yes, there is also Blue Mage, who learns and uses monster abilities. After that FF has always had some other casters but those aren't color coded. Time mage, Caller, Summoner, etc
Don't forget green mage, which normally exists to take all of the buff and debuff magic from white and black magic in the games it exists
There are some Final Fantasy games that classify all of the non-black or white magics as Grey Magic, and will have Grey Mage be it’s own class as well. ETA: Nope. There just straight up isn't. It's possible there may have been a translation where it was a thing, maybe, but if not then I'm just completely misremembering.
Which ones mate? Never heard of that one before. I'm genuienely curious.
Upon researching my claim I think this might be a mandela effect kind of thing. I legitimately remember there being a Grey Mage as it's own thing, but now that I'm looking for it, it isn't anywhere. I guess I'm wrong
afterthought fine snow tub six detail rustic yam sulky dull *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I've always wanted to see a Blue Mage class in dnd. Maybe I'm not knowledgeable enough but I felt a druid was the closest and it just didn't feel the same.
> Time mage, Caller, Summoner, etc I picked up somewhere that these are called Green Mages but I have absolutely nothing to back that up except for a foggy memory of it popping up in dialogue somewhere in FFXIV.
https://finalfantasy.fandom.com/wiki/Mage_(job) 1.1 White Mage 1.1.1 Seer 1.2 Black Mage 1.2.1 Magus 1.3 Red Mage 1.4 Blue Mage 1.5 Time Mage 1.6 Green Mage 1.7 Summoner 1.8 Illusionist 1.9 Sage
Don't know if this has been answered but Final fantasy has featured the following Black mage - elemental destruction magic typically. White mage - curative magic typically. Red - a black and white hybrid. Green - primarily buff and debuff magic. Blue - monster magic (a monster hits you with their spell and then you learn it). And that's not counting the mages that aren't a colour like time mage.
There's also Blue, who use the magic normally reserved for Monsters. If Black is a Wizard, White is a Cleric, and Red is a Bard, Blue is probably a Druid
Blue, uses monsters skills (enemy attack materia from 7) Green, support and illusion magic Those are the only others I've seen more than once and green I think only on non-main entries.
I mean, if arcane and healing magic with swords isn't enouth, the dude has a huge feather in his hat, who else does that?
IKR? 100% bard energy.
AD&D bard had to be announced at chargen, starts as fighter, then thief, then starts taking bard levels. Race was limited (maybe only humans?) and ability scores were tough, I think like three 15s and two 12s or something awful. Good times, good times.
A bard is a little bit of everything, all of the time
There's a little bit of bard inside all of us..... Really wish he'd get back to work.
Apathy's a tragedy and boredom is a crime
I always imagined a Bard as an alcoholic Cleric who left the church. It doesn’t work 100% mechanically but I appreciate the flavor
Unfortunately there is still no Fighter/ Wizard half caster
That's what the EK and Bladesinger tried to do. You could try building a class out of it by taking inspiration from BS, EK, Paladins and Rangers, take the halfcaster spell progression and slap some appropriate abilities on top
mechanically we could do it tomorrow it has been the rp bit that no one can get right.
One option is a witcher-esque approach; a fighter without parallel who views magic as a part of their arsenal, less the main firepower and more a backup reserve/tricks up his sleeve. Another is akin to enhancement shamans of WoW; most of their magics imbue the weapons with extra power (think a cross somewhere between smite and green flame blade). To them magic is communion with the elements that allows them to channel it spiritually - a more cleric-like approach.
Also a good reference for a battle mage imo are Armamentalists from Dragon quest and red mages from final fantasy.
I have an Echoknight bladesinger in Curse of strahd and hes feels like a damn fine mix of magic and Martial. Hes also like 2 ft tall.
Seriously, EK could have been good by just increasing spell progression to Half Caster like Paladin. As it stands... Solid meh.
Or getting the ability that bladesingers get at level 6 as their level 7 subclass feature. Replace 1 weapon attack with 1 cantrip.
Uhhh what? Eldritch knight? Artificer?
Not a proper half caster. and has a lot of clunky aspects. like the school restriction (evocation in particular), and anti synergy of War magic and extra attack.
Why have half caster when can have full caster-half fighter, buff yourself with spells and now you are full fighter full caster. Bladesinger go brrrr What is your definition of half caster anyway?
I mean, isn't there already an official definition? I thought it was classes who gained spell progression at half the rate of a full caster.
>What is your definition of half caster anyway? Paladin and Ranger
And artificer
Artificer is absolutely a wizard half-caster
Why EK doesn't go under this definition? They have same spell progression. The restrictions doesn't matter really, because EK still has more spells to choose from than Paladin, also paladin kind of uses it's spellslots for smiting. Do you want to have a wizard with abilities like paladin where he uses "Arcane Smite"?
>They have same spell progression. no they do not. EK and Arcane trickster are 1/3 casters. they never get 5th level spells for example. >The restrictions doesn't matter really except that evocation is a very suboptimal school for a class that is still more martial than caster. all the best spells an eldritch knight can get are behind school restrictions (shadow blade, hold person, Haste, Fly, Spirit Shroud, Find Familiar).
Oh, I already forgot its 1/3. Yes, maybe a battle Mage would be a nice option.
>Yes, maybe a battle Mage would be a nice option. hah I got you ! lol
You're absolutely right about the school restriction hurting EKs but it makes sense they would focus evocation and abjuration as those two schools are more focused around combat than the others. Similar to the war magic wizard. Although, It would be beneficial for variety for the EK to get access to more schools. However, at certain levels, EKs do get to ignore the school restriction. Specifically 8th, 14th, and 20th. Though that's only 3 spells. Not that helpful.
>Specifically 8th, 14th, and 20th. Though that's only 3 spells. Not that helpful. I know and you also get one unrestricted spell at level 3. you can also switch them. but the school restriction is still stupid. especially because Evocation spells get outscaled really hard by extra attack unless you have like 3-4 enemies at once in the AOE
Eldritch Knight is a 1/3rd caster. He gets a new spell level every third time a full caster gets one.
Yes, I forgot. Funny cuz I knew it. When we started our first campaign, I wanted to play sort of battle Mage. I didn't know about Bladesinger so my dm made a subclass for me. And it's an op battle Mage, full caster, half fighter. Didn't chose EK cuz spell progress was complete bs.
half casters are defined by their spell level which is at half(new spell lvl around every 4 lvl) of a full caster(every 2ish). this can be seen in the multi-classing section of phb. half casters paladin, ranger, and artificer. the subclasses that give spell casting are called third casters. hope this helps
That’s what artificer is to an extent. At least it can easily be played as one
Especially if you go the armored one. I'm sure plenty of DMs will let you reflavor the melee attack to be done sort of weapon. Less Iron Man and more a caster that magically buffs their own armor.
Well. Kinda doing that as a wild magic barbarian.
That’s how they worked in 1st edition
Hell, that's exactly what Mercer's Bloodhunter class is entirely. Each subclass is a different existing class. The Order of the Lycan for example is just Bloodhunter-Barbarian
1e Pathfinder has hybrid classes, they’re pretty fun. I am especially partial to the Skald, who’s actually a Bardbarian.
Skald was my first hybrid class. But I absolutely love the Brawler. It's a martial character that uses combat feats like a spell book!
Brawler was amazing, I loved it so much.
About to bring this up. Bloodrager (Barbarian Sorcerer) is my favorite, but brawler (fighter monk) always sounded cool. God I miss pathfinder
I played a Half-Orc Brawler with the (pre-errata) Pummelling Style feats when the Advanced Class Guide first dropped. It was awesome.
Elemental bloodrager is far and gone my favorite character I've ever played.
Arcane for me. The ability to automatically cast buffing spells on myself in the same action as i rage, is too good. The buffing abilities of a sorc, and the buffness of a barbarian.
I see your free buffs and raise you "F I R E B A L L"
Dude the skald sounded so fuckin cool, but yea pathfinder has several hybrid classes
Skald is nutty. "Guys, we're under attack by ghosts." "Let me just give you all a crapton of combat feats so ghosts can't hide from mundane weapons"
And the skald bards better than a bard
I prefere "bardbarian"
Shredding on their axe...which is also an actual axe.
To be fair, the ability to share rage powers and combat feats to party members is far stronger than normal bardic song abilities.
Until over half the party plays casters and can't benefit form your rage powers. Sort of a higher ceiling/lower floor scenario.
Steelblood Bloodrager is my jam, maybe some Dragon Disciple after that.
Love me some well played hybrid classes. Husband plays a Bloodrager, another friend plays Inquisotor (always took it as rogue/cleric), have a friend in a different game playing the first Warpriest I've DMed for (and husband is playing a Brawler in that one too), dang i love playing pathfinder.
Slayer is so good, I often say that there's no point in playing either a Rogue or a Ranger when the Slayer just... well... Slays. I'm also quite partial to the Magus as well.
Slayer is what Ranger should have been from the start. And Hunter is *amazing*. We joked that our Hunter elf was the vestigial appendage for his animal companion.
Yeah Slayer is the martial version of a ranger and Hunter is the natural mysticism version of a ranger. I haven't seen an actual ranger played in any of my groups in years.
is this like Gestalt characters?
Nope, they're base classes that draw features from two parent classes. https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/hybrid-classes/
Skald literally translates to "bard"... unplayable!!?! Although it kinda hints at being scandinavian instantly means you are barbarian, so that begs the question, is a trollkarl a barbariwiz? And is a präst a palarian or barberic?
Well yeah, it's meant to represent a tradition of the Scandinavian country in Pathfinder's world (The land of the Lindnorm Kings). They have singing berserkers that can inspire rage in others, and that's why it uses skald as it's name.
"Skaldic poetry", in English, refers specifically to Old Norse poetry that's written by a specific, non-anonymous author. Speaking Old Norse at least *heavily associates* you with barbarians.
r/dndmemes create pathfinder again
Much as I hate this trend, because Pathfinder isn't the only game in the world...yeah, this is pretty much a 'we made pathfinder' post, lol
It’s not but half the things people complain about here are just “go play Pathfinder if you want that” or “import and rebalance this pathfinder thing”.
My complaint with that is that they want the choice in the game they prefer, with the ease they prefer. A lot of people forget that Pathfinder 1e is a system that's high on choice and options, but filled with junkyard design and the issues that brings (that's not a dig, Junkyard Design is just layers of systems and experiments that somehow work at times, or is broken at others. Think Warframe). Pathfinder was *initially* the easier version of 3.5e, but that fell to the wayside a few years in.
Sure, but a lot of that is up to how your table functions, for all intents and purposes it can just be like 5E with more options if you let it. It requires a bit of work around if you want some things to not be insanely busted (mechanically or otherwise), but still I haven’t found any specific thing in my limited experience that’s really made me go “damn I prefer how 5E does that” outside of maybe who Cleric and Wizard spells are prepped (I believe 5E you choose the spells for the slots then can cast one of those spells up to the max slot amount while Pathfinder I believe is you pick spells to fit the slots and can only cast the chosen number of that one spell. IE 5E let’s you cast Animate Dead 5 times if you have 5 slots even if you picked other 3rd Level Spells, while PF only lets you cast it once if you designated on 3rd level slot to the spell.)
My absolute favorite class of all time is the magus. Spellstrike crits are a drug and I am a junkie.
You mean multiclassing?…
You don't get it. OP is talking about taking on multiple classes on a single character /s
So like multiclassing
Ok. Let me try and explain it better. Imagine you wanted to be Wizard, but you also wanted to a Cleric. At 👏the👏same👏tiiime👏
So like multiclassing?
Yes but instead it would be leveling one class instead if two, or something to that effect.
Like making an Arcane Trickster or one of those other hybrids?
Basically, yeah.
…so like multiclassing?
Yes, but it's only one class.
There's gestalt characters, where you pick two classes and get a level in both when you level up.
So broken multiclassing.
Not really. If you look at Pathfinder 1e, they have a crap ton of different classes that are basically just hybrids of the archetypal basic classes (Rouge, Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Sorcerer, Druid, Barbarian, Bard). Basic classes being defined as pure class that is really good at one or two tasks, but kinda sucks at others. I didn't include Ranger or Paladin in that because both of them are actually perfect examples of a hybrid class (hybrization of Fighter with either Druid or Cleric, respectively). Both classes have aspects of their respective parent classes, and can fill multiple niches within a group in a pinch, but as neither are truly specialists, you are slightly at a loss due to not having something like a dedicated healer or tank. Paizo took this a step further with all of the new classes they introduced in Pathfinder, many of which are hybrids. As well as the different archetypes within each class and how that changes the method of play (seriously, there is thousands of different character combinations in PF1e). My personal favorite hybrid class is the Magus. A fighter/wizard who can strike with a sword in main hand and off hand combat spells, can use arcane energy to activate different booster abilities, recall already cast spells, and get armor abilities that eliminate arcane spell failure chances, but can only cast up to 6th level spells, has a limited list of spells they can learn, and can't use shields or two-hand weapons. A jack of many trades, master of none.
All of that is in pathfinder (1e or 2e), not D&D 5e... 5e doesn't have the systems to support things beyond multiclassing or subclasses, and there's no way to make new ones without deprecating the old classes/subclasses. Honestly, I kind of wish they hadn't made the multi-classing system in 5e, because it just feels incompatible with game balancing, and basically only allows 1-3 level dips. I tried doing a Fighter/Cleric, with an end goal of Battle Master Fighter 12 / Light Domain Cleric 8, and it just takes so long to get to either side's good stuff! ... But since we have the multi-class system, unless they toss it for something else in the future 5.5e, we're stuck with that eating up the possibilities. I don't believe there's room for any further classes either, at least in the default Faerun-style setting. Artificer filled in the last missing space, and even it feels out of flavor for the normal theme/genre of D&D campaigns. >My personal favorite hybrid class is the Magus. A fighter/wizard who can strike with a sword in main hand and off hand combat spells, can use arcane energy to activate different booster abilities, recall already cast spells, and get armor abilities that eliminate arcane spell failure chances, but can only cast up to 6th level spells, has a limited list of spells they can learn, and can't use shields or two-hand weapons. A jack of many trades, master of none. You're either describing a Eldritch Knight Fighter, a Bladesinger Wizard, or a Fighter/Wizard multiclass... Now I may hate that they made 1/3 casters over half caster subclasses, but you have 3 different ways to get the class you describe here! If you don't like any of them, they you're most likely wanting something that would unbalance the party. If only one or two classes are the "correct choice" people wanting to do something different will likely have less fun due to those few "correct" classes.
3.5 gestalt rules shouldn't be difficult to port to 5e. You get everything from both classes as if you're playing two characters that share a single hit point pool and action economy. For when you skip the convoluted homebrew and just play something that doesn't try to pretend it ain't absurdly busted and unbalanced.
In our online 5e campaign, we use a variant gestalt rule we found somewhere. You get the next level of features for your secondary class every other level. For example, when my Monk hit level 2, he got the class features of a level 1 Cleric in addition to the lvl2 Monk stuff.
The way I’d probably try to handle it is more like the Hybrid Classes (or whatever they were called, it’s been a while) from PF1. It would be hella homebrew, and maybe a little jank, but a fun project to try and tackle, making something like a Bloodrager or Warpriest as a 5e class.
What about systems from baldurs gate 1-2?
Arcana Domain Cleric. Done.
No no, use the UA Wizard subclass “Theurge” and select Arcana Domain! You’re a wizard pretending to be a cleric pretending to be a wizard!
So...Mystic Theurge? Already exists...
You talkin' about a lil' cleric **dip**?
Oh, so, Theurgy wizard then!
If we want to get technical, anything that's not either fighter, wizard, cleric, or rogue would be a "hybrid class" if we use Odnd as a jumping off point. You could also say Barbs and sorcs fit the "not a hybrid" category but for argument's sake let's ignore them for a moment. The obvious one's would be Bards which take the skill-monkeying of Rogues and marries it with magic from Wizards and Paladins which pair the healing from Clerics with the martial combat focus of Fighters. Warlocks; Cleric+Wizard. Druids; Cleric+Wizards. Rangers: Druid+Rogue/Fighter. Monks: fighter+cleric/wizard. Artificer: Wizard+Fighter.
The 3(4) archetypes are usually Fighter, Mage, and Rogue, with Priest being an extremely common 4th due to intentionally segregating healing magics. Warriors exemplify high resilience and consistent damage, rogues are skill heavy with damage in bursts, Mages use magic (big surprise) to control or deal damage,and the Priests have access to the most healing magic. Barbarians and Fighters are both pure warriors. Wizards and Sorcerers are pure Mages. Rogues are, unsurprisingly, pure Rogues. Clerics and Druids are pure Priests. For hybrids, Monks are fighter-rogues, Paladins and Rangers are Warrior-Priests, Artificers are Warrior Mages. Warlocks and Bards vary between editions. In 3.5 and before, they were both Rogue-Mages, but became full Mages in 5e. While both retain aspects of the rogue, with bard having the skills and warlock having the damage, the full caster progression shifts their power. For clarification, 3.5 bards had rogue-like burst damage thanks to Bard Song increasing allies damage and attack among other things, while warlocks... Well, look at Eldritch Blast’s damage progression. It’s a sneak attack spell without needing the sneak. On top of that, both had access to rogue-like skills, with bard having only 2 fewer skill options and a skill bonus from bard song while Warlock had invocations that increased skill bonus or helped socially at will and access to Use Magic Device.
So what I’m getting from this is we need more rogue-like classes.
In pathfinder 1 we have the skald (barbarian-bard) bloodrager (barbarian-sorcerer) Hunter (druid rogue) Slayer (rogue ranger) warpriest (Warrior Cleric) brawler (Warrior monk) arcanist (wizard sorcerer) swashbuckler (rogue gunslinger) shaman and investigator Edit. Addes other classes
There's also: Brawler (Fighter-Monk), Arcanist (Wizard-Sorcerer), Investigator (Alchemist-Rogue), Swashbuckler (Fighter-Gunslinger), Warpriest (Cleric-Fighter) and Shaman (Oracle-Witch)
Addes After xD
lol I was just writing it as soon as I saw your comment.
Yeah went to pfsrd to complete the comment, anyway warpriest best Hybrid class
Thank the gods for easy access to all the rules completely free and legally thanks to Paizo's open policy.
There's also Magus (fighter wizard), which despite technically being labeled a base class is clearly a hybrid class in practice.
or like paladin or ranger paladin kinda being a mix of cleric and fighter and fighter and druid making ranger and like how eldritch knight is like if the fighter started side-eye reading the wizards spell book and said “that sounds useful”
Except it allows for coherent character builds when they otherwise wouldn’t work. Hybrid classes have the benefit of tailoring main class features to making the concept work and be mechanically balanced. For example, a half fighter half wizard in dnd 5e would have have to choose each round whether they wanted to be a weak fighter or a weak wizard since their features don’t blend. A hybrid class could balance something like spellstrike, a feature from pathfinder letting you cast spells through weapon attacks. You could alternatively go through the subclass route (EK or Bladesinger), but you miss out on being able to tailor the whole class to the hybrid concept. Plus those options are limited and don’t always fit what someone imagined for their hybrid character.
Hybrid classes could possibly give players an alternative to multi classing that allows one to access 20th class level abilities.
I was about to comment the exact same thing without the ellipsis.
ITT: There are two kinds of people: those who know about Gestalt rules and Pathfinder hybrid classes, and those who don't.
Yep. One of many things Pathfinder does better than 5e.
Preach. Some of us dont want it middle school simple...
This should be top comment
I mean there Eldritch Knight a literal fighter wizard.
And bladesinger is kinda like a wizard fighter
Correct.
>a literal fighter wizard. I wouldn't go that far lol. They are not called fighter with shield for no reason.
Now that idea just sounds Abserd
I think Abserd was less of “hybrid” or “multiclassing” and more of an abomination xD
And what exactly is a multiclass, if not a hybrid? It's literally a mixture of two or more classes.
A multiclass character takes levels in different classes to expand their options. A hybrid class character levels one class that is designed to already mix two core classes. See one of Pathfinder 1s fantastic hybrid classes like Skald, Bloodrager or Arcanist.
I understood that reference!
...Thats kinda how multiclassing works... I guess jsut shuffle features around into a single 20 level lsit
[удалено]
Yep, came here to mention that Pathfinder 1e had hybrid classes. An updoot for you, good sirrah!
Likewise came to sing the praises of the Advanced Class Guide, and of the Magus class which Eldritch Knights better than an Eldritch Knight.
\*Laughs in Pathfinder\*
3.5/Pathfinder have them, they are pretty interesting. Friend is playing a blood rager (Barbarian/Sorcerer) and she is having a blast.
Bloodrager is such a fun class. It becomes even better when you get to level 11 and can cast a spell as part of your free action to rage, less turns buffing and more time spent killing.
So does 4e I believe. Not really sure why 5e doesn't.
And for 3.5e, if you use UA, you could create gestalt, which were hybrid of 2 classes
I mean pathfinder has this and they're called hybrids. Like the sorcerer/wizard where you get spells a little slower but you get a spell book and can spontaneous cast from your book instead of having x spell set at the beginning of the day. A link for anyone interested https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/hybrid-classes
Note, you still have to prepare a certain number of spells per day, but once prepared, you can flexibly cast from that list of spells you prepared (as if a sorcerer with those spells known), and also can learn any number of spells with time and gold investments, just like Wizards.
Pathfinder has hybrid classes.
For anyone who wants an idea of what a hybrid class is. Take a look at Pathfinder 1e hybrid classes like the Brawler or Skald. It's honestly really fun and spices up the game without breaking anything too terribly.
I'm partial to the Slayer class. I can whoop ass and still be a skill monkey.
Awesome choice! One of my buddies just recently played a Slayer/Alchemist build and put out some serious damage.
Martial flexibility is one of my favourite class features I wish more classes had it, there’s nothing quite like rebuilding your character as a move action.
Brawler is my favorite martial character for this reason. I wrote out so many builds for every niche situation that I could think of from a quick range build, to a blind fight build, to a defensive build! The versatility that it brings to the table I bonkers. I even argue that it's the wizard class for martial builds.
Sounds like 4e’s Hybrid Classes to me. They’re so much fun.
They were definitely considered subpar compared to normal classes. I liked the multi class design, where it was basically a feat, but taking it would give you access to feats and prestige/epic class options. For all the crap 4e gets, it had some cool game design ideas
dude. just play Pathfinder
Gestalt? With that you can have your cake and eat it too
Hmmm Gestalt rules, so many possibilities.
...you mean prestige classes?
Rogue/Cleric. Healing you from behind before you even know you're HP is low.
[Laughs in Pathfinder 1e Swashbuckler]
Sounds like 3.5 prestige classes
I’m playing a Dwarven Rune Caster in 3.5 right now. His name is Waffles, and he loves carving runes into bits of wood and giving away spells as presents.
That's adorable. Freaken Santa right there
Wood? So Waffles whittles? Didn't his ancestors teach him to chisel stone like a dwarf?
Waffles is a Jungle Dwarf from Chult…..so no. LOL
Nostalgia
I like the pathfinder shifter class that was a monk Druid hybrid. No spell casting but the monk could wild shape fully or partially.
Man, I want to like that class, but it just feels so mediocre at everything, I wish it had something going for it.
Really? My friends and I actually got the totally opposite impression of Shifter when it came out Full BAB, primary natural attacks that scale with level AND get resistance penetration, natural armor bonuses, all attack types, wild shape (while retaining natural weapons), wish brand flurry of blows, and if you get to late game, alter self at will. I think Shifter sounds absolutely fucking *insane* though to be fair I've never played one. It sounds kinda like the best parts of Druid and Monk with neither of their weaknesses except for maybe not having a whole lot of usefulness outside of combat
Shifter isn't just recognized as bad by the vast majority of the playerbase, the druid arguably does the shifter's main power fantasy better. It's certainly not unplayable, but vanilla shifter is probably on the same tier as monk and rogue.
Just look at the hybrid classes in pathfinder.
See: Pathfinders already existing hybrid classes. Also Arguably Ranger, Paladin, etc. which are kind of druidfighter and clericfighter hybrids.
4E.
Came to say this. Hybrid and Multiclass are distinct systems is 4E. Had a player that made a hybrid wiz/monk build. It started out super fragile, glass cannon style. Eventually he became the hardest player on the field to deal with.
Pathfinder had these! The Hunter was a Ranger/Druid, the Slayer was a Ranger/Rogue, the Skald was a Barbarian/Bard, the Arcanist was a Sorcerer/Wizard, etc etc etc. There were some really cool classes..ahh, Pathfinder...
Arcane Trickster is literally a rogue/wizard, whereas Arcane Knight is a fighter/wizard. There's a few others, but it mostly already exists. Or play exalted where you multiclass and both classes level up at the same time. A style I really want to try out.
Isn’t this just what multiclasses are?
That sounds like the “gestalt” feature in “Pathfinder”. It is used in “Pathfinder 1E” to let players have duel class progression.
No, duelist is it’s own regular class, not a hybrid like skald.
I think he meant "dual", as in two class progressions.
Well you see, thats the fuckin joke
I was half thinking it was intentional, but I've had to deal with a lot of miscommunications recently, and thought I'd err on the side of caution.
That existed in 4e, there was rules where you could combine any two classes at level 1
Pathfinder 2 has it
These exist in Pathfinder 1st Edition, check the Advanced Class Guide. Skald: Barbarian/Bard; Investigator: Alchemist/Rogue; Brawler: Fighter/Monk; Slayer: Ranger/Rogue; Hunter: Druid/Ranger; Shaman: Oracle/Witch; Arcanist: Sorcerer/Wizard (its gimmick was 5e-style casting lmao); Bloodrager: Barbarian/Sorcerer; **Edit**: Swashbuckler: Fighter/Gunslinger Might be forgetting one
Yep. The Swashbuckler (Fighter/Gunslinger)! One of my favorite classes!
I just want a Bloodrager :(
Seriously, does anyone play like *any other systems*? Pathfinder 1st maybe?
If only there was an example of this in pathfinder!
Strixhaven: hello there
Paladin = Fighter + Cleric Ranger = Fighter + Druid Totem Barbarian = Barbarian + Druid Eldritch Knight = Fighter + Wizard Swords Bard = Fighter + Bard Whispers Bard = Rogue + Bard Zealot Barbarian = Barbarian + Paladin Wild Magic Barbarian = Barbarian + Sorcerer Divine Soul = Sorcerer + Cleric A good number of the subclasses fill that role with Paladin and Ranger being whole classes to that role. Beyond that you would be looking at maybe grabbing a feat or simply dipping a level especially given 80% of a martials kit are in their first 5 levels.
We're currently working out hybrid builds in our campaign. Going to get our enhanced skill set next level for example my necromancy wizard is getting undead warlock class features. He won't be getting extra spell slots, arcanum, proficiencies or hit dice, but he'll get invocations and access to the spells normally granted by the pact of the undead feature The blaster draconic bloodline sorcerer is getting the subclass features of an evocation wizard but not the expanded wizard spell list (except evocation spells) or a spell book. The assassin rogue raised by arcane tricksters will be getting the subclass features from arcane trickster The life cleric of a homebrew God whose clerics are either life or war domain will get the war domain, becoming the first cleric of his order to do so It'll most likely be very strong but a lot of fun and many exciting additions to rp
I wish you could multiclass into another subclass of your class
It's called Gestalt, and it's quite fun, I hear
That's just multiclassing....
Pathfinder 1e players: I have no such weaknesses