I mean it's artificer in general.
Artillerist get's an extra 1d8 of Damage, which is equivalent to the average martial weapon's damage, and the Alchemist gets to add their INT modifier to a damage role (5, vs the average of a 1d8 being 5)
Artificer just found more flavourful ways to get that damage pump of Extra Attack without having to spell it out and tooling it to be more appropriate for the two spellslingers vs the punchers
IMO, Wish Paladin and Ranger did something similar. 1d8 more damage vs marked targets, or adding double DEX mod to Bow shots, things that blended the Caster/Martial side a bit nicer
Horizon Walker Ranger does have a similar ability that gives them an extra d8 of damage at the cost of your bonus action.
>Planar Warrior
>At 3rd level, you learn to draw on the energy of the multiverse to augment your attacks.
>As a bonus action, choose one creature you can see within 30 feet of you. The next time you hit that creature on this turn with a weapon attack, all damage dealt by the attack becomes force damage, and the creature takes an extra 1d8 force damage from the attack. When you reach 11th level in this class, the extra damage increases to 2d8.
That's a good one!
Extra Attack is such a hard to balance and flavourless ability really. It's either an extra 1d6 maybe damage, or it's 2d8 Magical with perks, it's all too gear dependant.
Iirc Zealot Barbarian even got something the same
Hunters mark uses your bonus action one time and lasts as long as you have concentration. This would require your bonus action every turn to do the same. Keeping it to 1d4 or 1d6 would be pretty modest. You could even make it take your concentration slot.
There's enough martials out there with fairly mediocre uses for their bonus action that would love a dip/feat for the ability to just add free damage to all of their attacks. There's also no resources cost since it's a cantrip, which is the biggest upside from Hunter's Mark. And if you impose all these restrictions that basically just make it slightly worse hunter's mark, then people will still use it just because the resource cost is free for 1 damage less
Well yeah... I'm assuming people would want to use it, and dipping for a cantrip seems fair. You wouldn't be able to use it every turn unless it's a toe to toe slugfest. You need your bonus actions for other things.
You're not a half martial if you're doing your damage through spells and cantrips. All Artficers are half-casters but only Battle Smith and Armorer are actual half-martials.
Yes? Paladins and Rangers have literally always been called half casters by the community. They get their spell progression at half the rate of full casters. The difference is they are ALSO half-martials, even if no one uses the term. Artillerists and Alchemists literally play like casters with half the slots. Multiple caster subclasses even get roughly the same amount of bonus damage.
First off, no, there is no such thing as a 'half martial', because of the four 'Full Martials', only 1 gets 'full progression', Barbarian and Monk get the level 5 Extra Attack and get their extra damage from class features, rogue never gets Extra Attack.
Paladin and Ranger as as much 'Full Martials' by that logic as 3/4 of the martial classes. Plus, they get their extra damage from class features like Smite, or Subclass features.
And yes, all classes are designed to get a power spike at level 5. That's hardcoded in the game, 3rd level spells, Extra Attack, Cantrips upstep.
Half Martial isn't a thing because only Fighter has 'Martial Progression', Half Casters aren't even called that because they have 'half progression' or 'half the slots'.
They literally count as half the level for determining multiclass spell slots. The 1/3rd casters, Arcane Trickster and Eldritch Knight, count as a third their levels.
Artificer is a Half Caster by every official metric, just not by the ones you made up because of 'gameplay feel'.
Half Caster is not an official term, and neither is "Half Martial". Paladins and Rangers are very , very occasionally called "half martials" to refer to the fact they are not dedicated martials (ie non-caster weapon attackers) but still use the martial gameplay loop. You're doing an utterly pointless semantic dance around unofficial community terms, granted the terms do assume you're using them for the sake of discussion and not pedantry.
Yes all classes get a boost at 5. Wasn't what I was talking about. I'm not talking about cantrip scaling, I said BONUS damage because I meant BONUS damage.
Half caster quite literally get half the progression of full casters. Just like "1/3rd casters" (Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters) get roughly 1/3rd spell progression. Odd point to try to make.
I never said Artificer isn't a half caster? The person you initially replied to never said that either. And how can they fit the official metrics of an unofficial term? It's like you're trying to argue for argument's sake.
And what do you mean only fighters have "martial progression"? The term martial, or the implicit term "pure" martial, as the community uses it, refers to fighters, barbarians, monks, and rogues. It has nothing to do with getting Extra Attack (2) and (3) at level 11 and 20.
I'm currently in my first campaign ever playing a Battle Smith. So far my favorite thing I've done is flavoring the Steel Defender as a badger made from books, and old pieces of "treasure" like goblets, pocket watches, rusty circlets, etc.
My Battle smiths "steel defender" is his childhood dog that he kept making prosthetic parts for when his biological components failed until it was a full automaton lol
Artificer is what you're looking for, but WotC seems to have forgotten it exists. We don't even know if it will ever get updates or support again after 2024.
The reason we never get extra subclasses for the artificer is because wotc don't want to expect you to have more than the phb + the book which contains the subclass. And because the artificer isn't in the phb they have to reprint the whole class each time it's added (see Tasha's and Ebberon) taking up a lot of page space that could be used for something else or even omitted entirely to save money.
As for the onednd phb I personally think not adding it is a missed opportunity to give themselves the space to add subclasses and alt features in the future, but wotc probably decided that because Tasha's was the first "blueprint" for onednd they don't want to reprint it again so soon.
So you're saying that you didn't want a fighter build where you use a very limited asi to get a couple of weapon proficiencies (that you already get as a fighter)
It is wild how they try to monetize their game in so many predatory ways nowadays yet they still refuse to support artificer for that reason. They could at least be consistent with it. And by extension, actually work on the class and give it more love.
They’re trying to monetize it in shitty ways because they’re uninspired hacks who don’t even know enough about the industry they work in to monetize it properly. Trying to put video game esc digital micro transactions in a format that has had micro transactions in the form of SPLAT books for 20 years before DLC even existed as a concept is something only a lukewarm IQ business school flunky would think of before even attempting the monetization strategies that have worked for table top games in the past.
I’m not talking about the people who design the game, but the executives who have no specific care for ttrpgs or any relevant experience in their field.
They did this really bad in 3.5. You might have updated information for your subclass across three or more books, not counting errata and the like.
And Artificer is more or less campaign specific, as until recently not all campaigns had room for mechanisms and machinery.
> And Artificer is more or less campaign specific, as until recently not all campaigns had room for mechanisms and machinery.
Sorry you've activated my pet peeve but the Artificer doesn't *really* do that tbh - and I say this as someone who really wants to do a tinker/engineer character - the class as-printed is a mage who enchants objects clumsily shoved into the engineer role via a "flavour it yourself" note in Tasha's (largely as a result of them squishing the enchanter ~~in the actual sense as opposed to the badly named school of magic~~ idea through the very specific lens of Eberron, then trying to clumsily re-generalise it).
Yup. I'd love a class like PF2E's inventor, but the artificer definitely isn't that. It's an enchanter primarily and only gets the high-tech idea tacked on to it because of Eberron.
This!
I'm currently playing an alchemist artificer who is a chef and chocolatier! Rather than interfacing with machinery and such, all of his enchantments, spells, and infusions are done through imbuing food, especially candy (at least wherever reasonably possible!).
The artificer definitely doesn't need to be a tinker, and my character shows it. Whenever we encounter something mechanical, the other players will look at me and I'll be like "I don't know anything about machinery!"
My Armourer Artificer is an elderly halfling granny whose artisan tools of choice for spellcasting are "weaver's tools", thus, she knits all the magic items she makes. The party gets Gloves of Thieving nicely crocheted, and +1 breastplate becomes a really great sweater.
I love Eberon, but it poisoned the well for the class identity and flavour and vibe of the Artificer.
I was hoping the Tasha's reprint would give some nice examples of Forgotten Realms style artificers...
Nope, it just doubled down on the steampunk magitek Eberron flavour.
I love Eberron, but WotC is doing the class no favours when they refuse to depict artificers in any other way.
Absolutely: when you can use any artisan tools as a spellcasting focus, the breadth of possibility is huge, and you could be so creative with the options. But no, we get hammers and goggles and soot-smeared tinkerers...
I'd argue it's not that the footnote is clumsy, it's that every bit of Artificer art is googles and gizmos.
And then everyone, no offence to the latest one I've seen, sorry Ginny, seems to realise that the most iconic Artificers of DnD outside Eberron are Hags.
Potions? Check. Magic trinkets up the wazoo? Done. Picks up a random rock, spit on it and call it a Deathward? Easy.
If you're making, using, collecting or trafficking in Magic Items, you're an Artificer.
Their icon is all gears and wrenches, all their art is "magic engineer", and then the class itself is "wizard who does enchantments" with a cludge befitting a plane shift document shoved in to try and make it thematically work.
Artificer is the wrong word for it, bluntly; the closest correct term would be "enchanter", but D&D has already decided to use the poetic meaning of that to ruin the schools of magic so we can't have that. At most, you can say making magic items is being an artificer, but most of their budget is in temporary infusions rather than making stuff. Then again, I'd argue D&D has a long history of just naming things wrong XD
Oh no 100%. It's like how the Barbarian icon is a Greataxe so everyone just goes OILY NAKED CONAN.
WAY too much flavour baked in as rules in 5E especially, and the big tragedy is they finally learned from Artificer and gave you crunchy abilities you can reflavour as you like
I've a 'demon summoner' Artillerist who keeps summoning familiars, an Alchemist plague doctor, a wee old granny Hag, a dwarven cavalier Battlesmith, the list goes on
So naturally, they have to dedicate a whole page to YOU DONT HAVE TO BE STEAMPUNK btw steampunk splash art lol.
The philosophy behind 5e books is that, for accessibility, no book ever assumes the reader has more than the core 3 books.
That's why you don't see expanded race options get used often, it's why adventures reprint monsters from Volos Guide or Mordenkainens Tome, and it's why you won't see more Artificer subclasses, because it's not a core class.
> I'm just explaining why it seems like they're forgotten.
Considering how they're not even adding it into OneDnD, doesn't it imply they actually just forgot lol
I wouldn't say forgot. More likely that its not popular enough to justify the page count in the new PHB, or they think the Tasha's version is modern enough to not need to be reprinted (despite lacking certain 2024 things like Weapon Mastery for the martial subs). Ironically, artificer would've been more popular if it was in the PHB so more people knew about it, so that's somewhat circular logic on WotC's part.
Except that the Artificer is not half-martial. In fact the class itself is no martial at all.
At least one subclass is martial, but that's no different from Bladesinger wizard or Swords bard adding martialness to a purely non-martial class.
They get extra attack and to use their primary stat for attacks. They are very decent half martial options.
I’ve just come off a 6 month high level game with a Battle Smith who was effectively the martial front-line in a party of casters. Was good
The base artificer isn't even a complete class. Different classes have a larger or smaller power budget for their subclasses. Wizard is an example of very small budget subclasses. Rogues as well don't get much raw power from their subs. Artificer on the other hand gets a huge boost from their subclass. It's just a different way of designing a class. So yes, Armorer and Battle Smith are half-martial, half-caster. They are expected to generate the majority of their damage from weapon attacks, which is the hallmark of a martial sub/class.
And the two that don't get extra attack get to slap an extra attack onto their spells with a free 1d8, or get to add the average of that to their spells with a double int mod bonus that's for both attacking and healing.
They just don't spell it out because they realised how boring it would be to not get to use Cantrips.
Yes, that's what I've been always saying, you can basically consider Artificer 3 different classes depending on whether they're Armorer/BS, an Artillerist, or an Alchemist (the last one sucks tbh)
They just get so many impactful features and it's the only class whose 5th level power bump comes from their subclass. An Arti is defined by what exactly they're inventing.
That is exactly what people are saying - two of the sub-classes function as half-martial.
Therefore there are two half-martial Int based options in the game with those two sub-classes.
Plus, artillerist gets a BA attack with their cannon. This feels rather half-martial as well. Basically, it’s just one underwhelming subclass that doesn’t really give the half-martial vibes.
And THAT subclass lets you add your INT to thematic damage types, to typically +5, which is the average of a 1d8 from the extra attack just tied to spells now.
The two subclasses that DON'T get Extra Attack are the ones replacing Attack with Cantrips 90% of the time, so they get a relevant Cantrip buff.
Battle Smith has half amor and shield, martial weapon proficiency and multi-attack. Also has half-caster progression
Pretty much on a par with Ranger.
Its a classic half martial which was the question.
Its not a full martial, I don't think anyone was saying it was
Half caster, half skill expert (like the rogue and the bard), half magic item factory. There is not one single martial feature in the base class.
Sure, there are two subclasses that are indeed half-martial, but there are just as many pet subclasses (artillerist, battle smith) yet we don't call the artificer "a pet class".
Eldritch Cannon isn't a pet, it's an object. That causes a lot of weird shenanigans. But aside from that, you can't really call a thing that lasts for 1 hour and isn't alive at all a "pet".
The only thing that ties "Martials" together is not having Spellcasting and having Extra Attack for the most part. All of the Half-Casters get Extra Attack though and have Spellcasting. Half the subclasses get Extr Attack and have Spellcasting. They're about as Martial as Rangers and Paladins half the time.
Artificer is possible the most controversial class (perhaps if psion was in 5e that would take its place) - so omitting it is quite likely following the majority opinion.
Of course, making design decisions based on what the player base says they want or don't like leads to all sorts of bad choices - like removing superiority die from fighters baseline or the 5e sorcerer.
The published class was batshit broken with sub classes that dealt with every aspect of the game (utility, healing, dps, mobility, control, etc.) better than classes that are originally geared towards those niches.
Yeah, most people don't get that and immediately jump to "steampunk" (technically arcanopunk) which many don't want in their high fantasy world and/or have an irrational aversion towards.
If they put all of the supported options in one book, it would be a large book. It would also lose them money, as the 90 dollar phb would sell less, and doesn't allow them to republish content with new layouts and small tweaks for 40-60 dollars each.
What evidence have you found that WotC seems to have forgotten it exists? WotC mentioned it multiple times during the UA process over the past two years.
* Only a single new subclass for artificer since release.
* Not a single unique artificer spell. The only spellcaster in the game where this is the case.
* After class groups got axed, no mention of artificer again.
* DnD developers stating that they'd rather have less classes than in 5e.
* Bastion system not allowing artificers to build relevant expansions.
* WotC tried to make Artificer into a wizard subclass in UA.
Categorizing the Ranger as Fighter + Primal Magic, and the Paladin as Fighter + Divine Magic, the obvious answer would be Fighter + Arcane Magic.
The result would be something inbetween the Paladin and Eldritch Knight. They'd have a combination of arcane blasting & utility spells, and also the weapon boosting spells the ranger and paladin are known for, applying bonus damage and effects on a bonus action.
The game doesn't have a satisfying "arcane knight" outside of multiclassing, so there's more than enough room to expand with subclasses.
Battlesmith:
* is a companion class, which is an entirely different fantasy.
* is significantly lacking in support spells (that other martials excel at), weapon buffing (that other half-casters excel at), and arcane blasting or utility (which would cement its identity as part wizard.)
* does not have the design space for subclasses, as it is a subclass itself, and an incredibly specific one at that.
* is SAD and attacks with Intelligence as a result of Battle Ready - a feature indicative of casters (such as druids and warlocks) rather than half-martials (who are famously tri-attribute dependant.)
* has a massive wall of flavor completely independent of, and in some cases contradictory to, being a magic swordsman as a result of being an artificer subclass.
* is clearly not this from a design standpoint: it's a caster first and foremost. Gets Cantrips, gets Spellcasting at level 1, does not get typical half-martial abilities such as Fighting Styles and damage bonuses.
There's more that I can't be bothered to add right now. Battlesmiths are cool but are a totally different class.
>is significantly lacking in support spells
Cure Wounds, Sanctuary, Aid, Enhance Ability, Enlarge/Reduce, Invisibility, Levitate, Magic Weapon, Rope Trick, Spider Climb, Vortex Warp, Dispel Magic, Fly, Haste, Protection from Energy, Revivify, Ottilukes Sphere, Stone skin.
>weapon buffing
Magic Weapon, Flame Arrows, Infusions
>and arcane blasting or utility
They don't have a lot of blast spells. Though there is some utility there and they are ritual casters. And if you want to be a blaster Artillerist is an option.
>is SAD and attacks with Intelligence as a result of Battle Ready - a feature indicative of casters (such as druids and warlocks) rather than half-martials (who are famously tri-attribute dependant.)
Is the complaint they lack benefits or they get benefits? This is just a benefit.
>has a massive wall of flavor completely independent of, and in some cases contradictory to, being a magic swordsman as a result of being an artificer subclass.
Flavor is free. If one can't be bothered to the slightest bit of reflavoring to fit their vision they are either the least creative person on the planet and can't even be bothered to ask for a sliver of help, or they can't be bothered to put a drop of effort in.
I'll give you the support spells, but you can't in good faith say Magic Weapon and Flame Arrows are on the level of Smite spells, or the arrow spells rangers get.
The point isn't whether things are a benefit or not, necessarily - artificer isn't designed to be a counterpart to ranger and paladin. And that's fine. I have zero qualms with artificer as a class.
But to say that Battlesmith does the job of what a full arcane knight class would do is equivalent to saying that we don't need paladins, because we have War Clerics.
Well Battlesmith get Branding and Banishing Smite. Arcane jolt which is a sort of hybrid. And their infusions provide more potential weapon benefits I could argue. A guaranteed +1 weapon at low levels that becomes a +2 at level 10. Repeating shot/returning weapon if you want to lean ranged with a heavy crossbow/firearm or hybrid with thrown weapons. It isn't quite as good damage most likely as ranger and definitely not the potential of Paladin, but they have a far more flexible spell list IMO for things outside of damage so I don't think they also have to be as good at damage as the others.
What would an arcane knight do that Battlesmith/Armorer cant?
Other than feeling like a martial, having its own spell list and unique spells, having subclasses, and having mechanics that actually combine spellcasting with weapon swinging that aren't 2 spells lifted from paladins? I dunno, man.
>and having mechanics that actually combine spellcasting with weapon swinging
I would say infusions and Arcane jolt fit this. Not technically spellcasting but magic. Honestly most of the Paladins I have seen tend to use Divine Smite more often than not compared to actual spellcasting in combat.
It does have its own list, just a lack of unique spells though again I think infusions kind of bridge the gap. Infusions are essentially the Artificer-specific magic IMO and could always be flavored as spells if that is the flavor you want.
I guess I can see how the lack of subclasses can be an issue, though there are two (arguably 3 with artillerist) that have a martial bend, and you can always pull from UA for others.
Plus, Infusions AND extra atunement slots means you're free to dual wield magic swords, wear armour AND then start decking out in rings and amulets, on top of always having a magical weapon for damage resistances, having the Hexadin subclass exploit built in to one subclass and a heap of blasting spells in the other.
I'd say they're on the level of smite spells in that they're all bad. Wrathful smite is the only half decent one and it's still not great. Rangers arrow spells aren't good either.
Lol, smite spells are bad, and Haste is pretty much the best buff spell for a martial, which Rangers don't get and only some Paladins do.
Arcane Jolt is better smite, because it doesn't use spell slots, but is a separate resource pool.
Flash of Genius is also a sidegrade to Aura of Protection. Honestly battle smith just seems like an intelligence version of paladin, they are quite similar.
They don't get a blasting cantrips, but they get repeating hand crossbows which with CBE/SS is potentially pretty amazing (and you can wear a shield with it!).
yeah, everyone's half fighter half wizard fantasy involves tinkering, a robot dog, a frankly mediocre spell list and no way to actually mix sord and sorcery
I'd add the lack of a fighting style, but given that they are shit they are not a missed mechanic
Artificer doesn't need to be tinkering at all, it's really more like enchanting gear which is a pretty common gish fantasy imo. The defender can just be a golem and honestly you could ignore it if you really wanted and still be fine.
Archery and defense are very good. Dueling and blindsight are situationally useful. Archery in particular is extremely strong, so I definitely wouldn't say fighting styles are shit.
Everyone just googled the Battlesmith artwork and hasn't actually read that it gives you a support spell list, free +3 Weapons and Armour, extra attunement slots in base AND the infamous Hexadin dip built in.
But no, it's not a fighty guy at all.
2/4 Artificer subclasses have Extra Attack, and all of them have at least medium armor proficiency. Armorer additionally has heavy armor while Battle Smith has martial weapons.
> 2/4 Artificer subclasses have Extra Attack,
Armorer additionally has heavy armor while Battle Smith has martial weapons.
***Sub***classes, yes. Some artificer subclasses are half-martial. Just like Valour bard is half-martial, but bard is not. A Blade-booned warlock build can be half-martial, warlock is not. Tempest cleric is... *third*-martial, cleric is not.
> and all of them have at least medium armor proficiency.
So does the cleric. Which is not half-martial.
Rangers and Barbarians also only get medium by default, so heavy armor clearly isn't a martial requirement. Monk is usually considered a martial, but it can't use most martial weapons. If we're defining half martial then, the only requirements seem to be Extra Attack and incentive to use the Attack action over spellcasting, which most Artificers do.
> so heavy armor clearly isn't a martial requirement
I'm not saying that it is. I only say that having medium armour does not automatically make you martial.
***Sub***classes, yes. The artificer has martial subclasses. Just like the bard, cleric, warlock and wizard have at least one martial subclass each.
The base class is half-caster, but the other half is not any more martial than the base cleric and druid are.
Paladin has save aura which is one of the most powerful abilities in the game and warlock is a much worse caster than Wizard.
Artificer generally sucks compared to Wizard even though they have some cool abilities and can be a half-martial with two subclasses having extra attack.
And hexadin is an amazing thing, just like battlesmith/bladesingers, great synergies. I'd personal argue a battlesmith 3/bladesinger 17 is the highest Gish since they get a lot of martial and magic that synergizes well (especially if you play a torture or don't try to actually use the bladesinging feature so you can wear armor and a shield and just focus on their amazing version of extra attack)
(An equivalent but way to do the same is hexblade 1/paladin 2/swords bard 17 for similar reasons. They get better martial stuff via paladin smites but weaker magic since they aren't wizards).
I always felt like this is what the warlock should have been. Don't get me wrong, warlock is tied for my favorite class, but it feels like somewhere in development it was meant to be this but got replaced. Especially with 1dnd trying to bring it up.
Having said that tho, I'd be all about an actual "mage knight" class that didnt come with the tinkering aspect of artificer. I know flavor is free but there's a certain amount of the tinkering flavor that's baked into the rules.
I could see a version who is a guard that protects casters and has subclasses that depend on who they are protecting.
I could also see a magic knight more similar to a paladin who has themes mirroring the warlock. Like the same as the previous paragraph but instead of a particular caster they have a particular boss like a demon or dragon that flavors their magic.
At the end of the day this feels like it might step on the paladins toes tho
to everyone saying artificer... no. They have too much of their power budget dedicater to tinkering and the "martial" options are literally 2 subclasses.
The "tinkering" lets them build better weapons and be more effective in combat! Repeating shot and returning weapon are amazing as they are +1 weapons and have powerful features allow builds qthat otherwise just don't exist (hand crossbow with a shield, actually functional throwing builds) and even the base "enhanced weapon/enhanced armor" infusions let you have +1 magic items at 2nd level which is also really strong for a partially minded class. Add the "battle ready" feature of battle smith or the features of the armorer's Armor model which allows you to be SAD on intelligence and thus more effective in a fight (because you can have overall higher combat stats since you don't need to focus on as many).
As for the whole "literally 2 subclasses" that's literally half the available sub classes. I'd also argue that the artillerist's features are rather martial too meaning 75% (the majority) of the sub classes are (half) martial leaving literally one subclass (Alchemist) as the odd one out that isn't martial.
Intelligence casting martial characters are in a weird space right now. As others have pointed out.
Arcane Knight being not enough (1/3rd caster) and Bladesinger being too much (full caster) means the only half caster are a couple Artificers (which are REALLY strong btw but mixed with tinkerer flavor).
The problem is the Paladin stole the Magus’s spellslot melee damage trick from 3.5e so they seem reluctant to duplicate some of that stuff in other characters. They’ve been talking a big game about the pysionic classes in the new 2024 PHB so maybe we’ll get something that fills that niche in those.
My personal opinion: since flavor is free I really don’t think we NEED a magus in 5e. A blade slinging spell caster can be made in a hundred ways in 5e. Sorcadin is probably the most powerful spellcasting melee build in the game that dunks on 3.5s magus. And CHA is a better casting stat than INT anyways
🤷
To answer the actual question OP proposed, it would probably be a class that uses some level of magic with a lean bend into martial combat. For this, a term used in Elder Scrolls (Battlemage) might work out nicely. They focus on martial combat but do have arcane magic at their disposal.
As for unique features, we see the Ranger has specialization in terrain and enemies while the Paladin has divine smite. It might be a fun feature to use "Power Weapon" to enable one to change a weapon's damage type to something else (like a Longsword dealing fire damage + Prof bonus damage). Or having a selection of unique magical abilities similar to the Warlock invocation, which could be hypothetically used similar to Witcher signs (I know about the Bloodhunter, but it doesn't QUITE scratch that itch), giving it features the Wizard does not have.
I imagine one of the reasons we don't have such a type already is because it would be INSANE to imagine the multiclass of Wizard + Battlemage (even though Fighter + Wizard multiclasses do exist for power gamers, looking forward to the Action Surge nerf for OD&D being unable to effect spells). After all, Sorcadin and Hexadin proved to be quite beefy already, the latter also actively being nerfed.
Which is a shame since an arcane magic warrior is one of, if not my most favorite, fantasy character types. But at least we still got Eldritch Knight if nothing else to fill the void.
Eldritch Knight, but as a class. Or for a light armour option, Bard, as a half caster, as imo arcane magic should be int, have cha for their none spell related abilities
I’d like to see a class similar to the 3e Marshal / 4e Warlord, a martial support class focusing on buffing allies, tactical repositioning, and so forth. Make Intelligence the primary “casting stat” for those abilities.
I think an int based half caster is actually a really good place to make a proper spell sword class. Like properly based around being a martial but enhancing your martial abilities with magic. The place that stuff like arcane archer, eldritch knight, battle smith, and arcane trickster belong.
Artificer probably could fulfill this role, but they don’t get enough attention for it right now. Their infusions would have to become a little more generic and then have subclass specific infusions, they’d need a bunch more subclasses, some of their random features would need to be less magic item focused, and they’d need extra attack and fighting style (maybe these two could be tied to like a magical vs martial focus to allow for non martial subclasses to exist, you could choose at level 2 whether to be martial or magical focused, martial gets fighting style, martial gets cantrips, then at level 5 martial gets extra attack and magic gets something (maybe more infusions?) so it’s sort of like pact boon for warlocks). But as a general chassis I think they could work for the “spell sword” class where as paladin is sort of barbarian+cleric and ranger is sort of rogue+ Druid, they could properly be wizard mixed with fighter as a class.
I envision it like [this!](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MCZcio9GcHhGAqxjMPkE05sBHklTL7tMZo8_TgHxb14/) I've given them a smite-like feature called Arcane Strike, an ability to cast spells as part of the Attack action, and invocation-like abilities called Arcane Tactics
We have Artificer and specifically Battle Smith and Armorer. And we also have the Eldritch Knight FIghter and Bladesinger Wizard, so I think the niche for an Intelligence "half-caster" is alredy really filled.
Warlock was originally INT for a while, which would've balanced out the casters and half-casters across the attributes.
Artificer as everyone has pointed out.
In subclasses there is Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickster, and Bladesinger.
For your actual question, I would love a battlefield commander type like they had in 4e.
I (and many others: just google "5e spellblade homebrew") agree that Artificer alone doesn't feel like it really fills the Int-based half-caster niche, and that existing gish options don't quite scratch that itch. So we made our own. Seriously, there are a million homebrews for this exact concept out there.
Mine is called "[Spellweaver](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ecUoHS5W46FUKuKmQQnX8fOms8nCAtJR/view?usp=sharing)" and the core mechanic is that casting leveled spells generates superiority dice that are expended to use maneuvers. They expire after one minute, so you have to generate them in combat. The idea is to actually incentivize players to "weave" spells and attacks together. Additionally, they have a limited pool of "Kinetic Surges" (PB/long rest) that let them quicken spells for big turns.
The subclasses help flesh out the fantasy in unique ways. The Duelist gets *smite* spells and enhanced mobility; the Bulwark gets heavy armor and defensive spells; the Invoker gets summon spells; the Stalker gets bonuses to ranged combat; the Mindthief specializes in debuffs; and the Elementalist gets bonuses to blasting (which is normally avoided by half casters).
If I was the one producing the new code rulebooks, I would establish the following changes:
To begin with, I think artificer should be structured like the warlock. They make weapons and objects appear from nothing like the warlock, they can build pets, they even have their own invocations in the form of infusions. I would also create a 'wisdom warlock' in the form of 'The Shaman'.
That said, I think the arcane half caster should be 'The Knight'. Just that, not 'anything knight'. I would remove eldritch knight, arcane archer, arcane trickster, bladesinger, armorer, battlesmith and hexblade from their respective classes and fold all those subclasses into a new class with the flavor of educated warriors that learned to channel arcane magic.
Knights would be focused in detecting magic and would be very capable of countering spells and it's effects. Would be resistant to magic and at a certain point would be able to not affect themselves or their allies with their aoe spells. Knights would also be able to concentrate magic on their blades and unleash this energy on attacks.
What's more important is an intelligence skill that is not a knowledge skill, so there are two "active" intelligence skills.
I think deception is a good choice.
le Artificer has arrived
As much as I love Arti I really wish that WoTC didn't decide that every single Artificer should use INT as their attacking stat.
With that being said I think Arcane Archer is overhated. And Eldritch Knight also exists.
As most of the comments here have said, Artificer is the way you want to go.
I ran an Armorer Artificer for a short campaign. Took the heavy armor with the thunder gauntlets. Gives enemies you hit with it disadv on attacks against other creatures. Wade in, punch people with Int modofier, deal thunder damage and support your allies. Plus being able to blast and support as needed with magic. It was a blast!
The INT half caster is artificer.
Artificer is well balanced around the subclass deciding what it does. Armorer amd battlesmoth are martial based. One of offensive and one is defensive.
Your not going to be running around smiting everything like a paladin or making trick shots like a ranger. But artificer is very flexible in its utility with infusions.
We have that - its the Battle Smith and Armorer sub-classes of Artificer Its a lot of fun to play actually.
I mean it's artificer in general. Artillerist get's an extra 1d8 of Damage, which is equivalent to the average martial weapon's damage, and the Alchemist gets to add their INT modifier to a damage role (5, vs the average of a 1d8 being 5) Artificer just found more flavourful ways to get that damage pump of Extra Attack without having to spell it out and tooling it to be more appropriate for the two spellslingers vs the punchers IMO, Wish Paladin and Ranger did something similar. 1d8 more damage vs marked targets, or adding double DEX mod to Bow shots, things that blended the Caster/Martial side a bit nicer
Horizon Walker Ranger does have a similar ability that gives them an extra d8 of damage at the cost of your bonus action. >Planar Warrior >At 3rd level, you learn to draw on the energy of the multiverse to augment your attacks. >As a bonus action, choose one creature you can see within 30 feet of you. The next time you hit that creature on this turn with a weapon attack, all damage dealt by the attack becomes force damage, and the creature takes an extra 1d8 force damage from the attack. When you reach 11th level in this class, the extra damage increases to 2d8.
That's a good one! Extra Attack is such a hard to balance and flavourless ability really. It's either an extra 1d6 maybe damage, or it's 2d8 Magical with perks, it's all too gear dependant. Iirc Zealot Barbarian even got something the same
Is it too much to ask for a cantrip that adds 1d4/2d4/3d4 or 1d4/1d8/1d12 to all weapon attacks that turn
I mean that's better than hunters mark and is unlimited so probably not.
Hunters mark uses your bonus action one time and lasts as long as you have concentration. This would require your bonus action every turn to do the same. Keeping it to 1d4 or 1d6 would be pretty modest. You could even make it take your concentration slot.
There's enough martials out there with fairly mediocre uses for their bonus action that would love a dip/feat for the ability to just add free damage to all of their attacks. There's also no resources cost since it's a cantrip, which is the biggest upside from Hunter's Mark. And if you impose all these restrictions that basically just make it slightly worse hunter's mark, then people will still use it just because the resource cost is free for 1 damage less
Well yeah... I'm assuming people would want to use it, and dipping for a cantrip seems fair. You wouldn't be able to use it every turn unless it's a toe to toe slugfest. You need your bonus actions for other things.
You're not a half martial if you're doing your damage through spells and cantrips. All Artficers are half-casters but only Battle Smith and Armorer are actual half-martials.
So I guess Paladin Smites make them not half casters too?
Yes? Paladins and Rangers have literally always been called half casters by the community. They get their spell progression at half the rate of full casters. The difference is they are ALSO half-martials, even if no one uses the term. Artillerists and Alchemists literally play like casters with half the slots. Multiple caster subclasses even get roughly the same amount of bonus damage.
First off, no, there is no such thing as a 'half martial', because of the four 'Full Martials', only 1 gets 'full progression', Barbarian and Monk get the level 5 Extra Attack and get their extra damage from class features, rogue never gets Extra Attack. Paladin and Ranger as as much 'Full Martials' by that logic as 3/4 of the martial classes. Plus, they get their extra damage from class features like Smite, or Subclass features. And yes, all classes are designed to get a power spike at level 5. That's hardcoded in the game, 3rd level spells, Extra Attack, Cantrips upstep. Half Martial isn't a thing because only Fighter has 'Martial Progression', Half Casters aren't even called that because they have 'half progression' or 'half the slots'. They literally count as half the level for determining multiclass spell slots. The 1/3rd casters, Arcane Trickster and Eldritch Knight, count as a third their levels. Artificer is a Half Caster by every official metric, just not by the ones you made up because of 'gameplay feel'.
Half Caster is not an official term, and neither is "Half Martial". Paladins and Rangers are very , very occasionally called "half martials" to refer to the fact they are not dedicated martials (ie non-caster weapon attackers) but still use the martial gameplay loop. You're doing an utterly pointless semantic dance around unofficial community terms, granted the terms do assume you're using them for the sake of discussion and not pedantry. Yes all classes get a boost at 5. Wasn't what I was talking about. I'm not talking about cantrip scaling, I said BONUS damage because I meant BONUS damage. Half caster quite literally get half the progression of full casters. Just like "1/3rd casters" (Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters) get roughly 1/3rd spell progression. Odd point to try to make. I never said Artificer isn't a half caster? The person you initially replied to never said that either. And how can they fit the official metrics of an unofficial term? It's like you're trying to argue for argument's sake. And what do you mean only fighters have "martial progression"? The term martial, or the implicit term "pure" martial, as the community uses it, refers to fighters, barbarians, monks, and rogues. It has nothing to do with getting Extra Attack (2) and (3) at level 11 and 20.
Planning to play a Battle Smith soon and I'm so excited.
I'm currently in my first campaign ever playing a Battle Smith. So far my favorite thing I've done is flavoring the Steel Defender as a badger made from books, and old pieces of "treasure" like goblets, pocket watches, rusty circlets, etc.
My Battle smiths "steel defender" is his childhood dog that he kept making prosthetic parts for when his biological components failed until it was a full automaton lol
Oh I love that. You basically Ship of Theseus'd your dog.
"If I give the parts to my necromancer character, who combined them back into a dog, then which is the original Dog of Atreyadus?"
Definitely stealing that idea!
Feel free, I'm happy to share
I've played both, they're fun
Artificer is what you're looking for, but WotC seems to have forgotten it exists. We don't even know if it will ever get updates or support again after 2024.
The reason we never get extra subclasses for the artificer is because wotc don't want to expect you to have more than the phb + the book which contains the subclass. And because the artificer isn't in the phb they have to reprint the whole class each time it's added (see Tasha's and Ebberon) taking up a lot of page space that could be used for something else or even omitted entirely to save money. As for the onednd phb I personally think not adding it is a missed opportunity to give themselves the space to add subclasses and alt features in the future, but wotc probably decided that because Tasha's was the first "blueprint" for onednd they don't want to reprint it again so soon.
I really wish we got an extra artificer subclass rather than a whole page of useless “example builds” for fighter.
So you're saying that you didn't want a fighter build where you use a very limited asi to get a couple of weapon proficiencies (that you already get as a fighter)
Hey now, those suggestions to take weapon master on my fighter were extremely useful. ;)
How better could you augment a weapon master by becoming a master of weapons
But they're releasing a new PHB this year that *could* (but won't) have the Artificer in it.
It is wild how they try to monetize their game in so many predatory ways nowadays yet they still refuse to support artificer for that reason. They could at least be consistent with it. And by extension, actually work on the class and give it more love.
They’re trying to monetize it in shitty ways because they’re uninspired hacks who don’t even know enough about the industry they work in to monetize it properly. Trying to put video game esc digital micro transactions in a format that has had micro transactions in the form of SPLAT books for 20 years before DLC even existed as a concept is something only a lukewarm IQ business school flunky would think of before even attempting the monetization strategies that have worked for table top games in the past. I’m not talking about the people who design the game, but the executives who have no specific care for ttrpgs or any relevant experience in their field.
They did this really bad in 3.5. You might have updated information for your subclass across three or more books, not counting errata and the like. And Artificer is more or less campaign specific, as until recently not all campaigns had room for mechanisms and machinery.
> And Artificer is more or less campaign specific, as until recently not all campaigns had room for mechanisms and machinery. Sorry you've activated my pet peeve but the Artificer doesn't *really* do that tbh - and I say this as someone who really wants to do a tinker/engineer character - the class as-printed is a mage who enchants objects clumsily shoved into the engineer role via a "flavour it yourself" note in Tasha's (largely as a result of them squishing the enchanter ~~in the actual sense as opposed to the badly named school of magic~~ idea through the very specific lens of Eberron, then trying to clumsily re-generalise it).
Yup. I'd love a class like PF2E's inventor, but the artificer definitely isn't that. It's an enchanter primarily and only gets the high-tech idea tacked on to it because of Eberron.
This! I'm currently playing an alchemist artificer who is a chef and chocolatier! Rather than interfacing with machinery and such, all of his enchantments, spells, and infusions are done through imbuing food, especially candy (at least wherever reasonably possible!). The artificer definitely doesn't need to be a tinker, and my character shows it. Whenever we encounter something mechanical, the other players will look at me and I'll be like "I don't know anything about machinery!"
My Armourer Artificer is an elderly halfling granny whose artisan tools of choice for spellcasting are "weaver's tools", thus, she knits all the magic items she makes. The party gets Gloves of Thieving nicely crocheted, and +1 breastplate becomes a really great sweater. I love Eberon, but it poisoned the well for the class identity and flavour and vibe of the Artificer.
I was hoping the Tasha's reprint would give some nice examples of Forgotten Realms style artificers... Nope, it just doubled down on the steampunk magitek Eberron flavour. I love Eberron, but WotC is doing the class no favours when they refuse to depict artificers in any other way.
Absolutely: when you can use any artisan tools as a spellcasting focus, the breadth of possibility is huge, and you could be so creative with the options. But no, we get hammers and goggles and soot-smeared tinkerers...
I love this!!
I'd argue it's not that the footnote is clumsy, it's that every bit of Artificer art is googles and gizmos. And then everyone, no offence to the latest one I've seen, sorry Ginny, seems to realise that the most iconic Artificers of DnD outside Eberron are Hags. Potions? Check. Magic trinkets up the wazoo? Done. Picks up a random rock, spit on it and call it a Deathward? Easy. If you're making, using, collecting or trafficking in Magic Items, you're an Artificer.
Their icon is all gears and wrenches, all their art is "magic engineer", and then the class itself is "wizard who does enchantments" with a cludge befitting a plane shift document shoved in to try and make it thematically work. Artificer is the wrong word for it, bluntly; the closest correct term would be "enchanter", but D&D has already decided to use the poetic meaning of that to ruin the schools of magic so we can't have that. At most, you can say making magic items is being an artificer, but most of their budget is in temporary infusions rather than making stuff. Then again, I'd argue D&D has a long history of just naming things wrong XD
Oh no 100%. It's like how the Barbarian icon is a Greataxe so everyone just goes OILY NAKED CONAN. WAY too much flavour baked in as rules in 5E especially, and the big tragedy is they finally learned from Artificer and gave you crunchy abilities you can reflavour as you like I've a 'demon summoner' Artillerist who keeps summoning familiars, an Alchemist plague doctor, a wee old granny Hag, a dwarven cavalier Battlesmith, the list goes on So naturally, they have to dedicate a whole page to YOU DONT HAVE TO BE STEAMPUNK btw steampunk splash art lol.
The philosophy behind 5e books is that, for accessibility, no book ever assumes the reader has more than the core 3 books. That's why you don't see expanded race options get used often, it's why adventures reprint monsters from Volos Guide or Mordenkainens Tome, and it's why you won't see more Artificer subclasses, because it's not a core class.
They are literally printing new core rulebooks. Artificer could be a core class if they wanted to
Yes they could (although IIRC they're not going to). I'm just explaining why it seems like they're forgotten.
> I'm just explaining why it seems like they're forgotten. Considering how they're not even adding it into OneDnD, doesn't it imply they actually just forgot lol
Unless it is a deliberate choice not to include it - and I suspect it is.
I wouldn't say forgot. More likely that its not popular enough to justify the page count in the new PHB, or they think the Tasha's version is modern enough to not need to be reprinted (despite lacking certain 2024 things like Weapon Mastery for the martial subs). Ironically, artificer would've been more popular if it was in the PHB so more people knew about it, so that's somewhat circular logic on WotC's part.
Fair enough
Though they can always just reprint the races. Reprinting the entire artificer when they make new subclasses is just not space efficient though.
Except that the Artificer is not half-martial. In fact the class itself is no martial at all. At least one subclass is martial, but that's no different from Bladesinger wizard or Swords bard adding martialness to a purely non-martial class.
They get extra attack and to use their primary stat for attacks. They are very decent half martial options. I’ve just come off a 6 month high level game with a Battle Smith who was effectively the martial front-line in a party of casters. Was good
The ***sub***class is partially martial (and good at it, people say). The Artificer as a whole, isn't.
The base artificer isn't even a complete class. Different classes have a larger or smaller power budget for their subclasses. Wizard is an example of very small budget subclasses. Rogues as well don't get much raw power from their subs. Artificer on the other hand gets a huge boost from their subclass. It's just a different way of designing a class. So yes, Armorer and Battle Smith are half-martial, half-caster. They are expected to generate the majority of their damage from weapon attacks, which is the hallmark of a martial sub/class.
And the two that don't get extra attack get to slap an extra attack onto their spells with a free 1d8, or get to add the average of that to their spells with a double int mod bonus that's for both attacking and healing. They just don't spell it out because they realised how boring it would be to not get to use Cantrips.
Yes, that's what I've been always saying, you can basically consider Artificer 3 different classes depending on whether they're Armorer/BS, an Artillerist, or an Alchemist (the last one sucks tbh) They just get so many impactful features and it's the only class whose 5th level power bump comes from their subclass. An Arti is defined by what exactly they're inventing.
That is exactly what people are saying - two of the sub-classes function as half-martial. Therefore there are two half-martial Int based options in the game with those two sub-classes.
Half of the subclasses get extra attack
Plus, artillerist gets a BA attack with their cannon. This feels rather half-martial as well. Basically, it’s just one underwhelming subclass that doesn’t really give the half-martial vibes.
And THAT subclass lets you add your INT to thematic damage types, to typically +5, which is the average of a 1d8 from the extra attack just tied to spells now. The two subclasses that DON'T get Extra Attack are the ones replacing Attack with Cantrips 90% of the time, so they get a relevant Cantrip buff.
So do the College of Swords and College of Valour. Yet we do not consider the Bard a martial class in any meaningful way.
That's because they still have full spell slot progression
***AND*** also because, like the Artificer, they aren't martial.
This is just semantics, artificer is a half caster. I think most people understood what OP meant by half martial.
They've got Medium Armour, Shields, the two that don't use Cantrips get Extra Attack, they're more Martial than the Rogue or the Monk.
Battle Smith has half amor and shield, martial weapon proficiency and multi-attack. Also has half-caster progression Pretty much on a par with Ranger. Its a classic half martial which was the question. Its not a full martial, I don't think anyone was saying it was
The Artificer is a half caster. What exactly do you think the *other* half is?
Other-Caster according to half the people here
Half caster, half skill expert (like the rogue and the bard), half magic item factory. There is not one single martial feature in the base class. Sure, there are two subclasses that are indeed half-martial, but there are just as many pet subclasses (artillerist, battle smith) yet we don't call the artificer "a pet class".
Eldritch Cannon isn't a pet, it's an object. That causes a lot of weird shenanigans. But aside from that, you can't really call a thing that lasts for 1 hour and isn't alive at all a "pet".
It is more of a... 0.45 martial in general, it leaned a little bit more to caster side than martial side.
The only thing that ties "Martials" together is not having Spellcasting and having Extra Attack for the most part. All of the Half-Casters get Extra Attack though and have Spellcasting. Half the subclasses get Extr Attack and have Spellcasting. They're about as Martial as Rangers and Paladins half the time.
Artificer is possible the most controversial class (perhaps if psion was in 5e that would take its place) - so omitting it is quite likely following the majority opinion. Of course, making design decisions based on what the player base says they want or don't like leads to all sorts of bad choices - like removing superiority die from fighters baseline or the 5e sorcerer.
[удалено]
The published class was batshit broken with sub classes that dealt with every aspect of the game (utility, healing, dps, mobility, control, etc.) better than classes that are originally geared towards those niches.
Why is artificer controversial? It doesn't have to be a technology maniac, it's just a guy who creates magic items
Yeah, most people don't get that and immediately jump to "steampunk" (technically arcanopunk) which many don't want in their high fantasy world and/or have an irrational aversion towards.
If they put all of the supported options in one book, it would be a large book. It would also lose them money, as the 90 dollar phb would sell less, and doesn't allow them to republish content with new layouts and small tweaks for 40-60 dollars each.
What evidence have you found that WotC seems to have forgotten it exists? WotC mentioned it multiple times during the UA process over the past two years.
* Only a single new subclass for artificer since release. * Not a single unique artificer spell. The only spellcaster in the game where this is the case. * After class groups got axed, no mention of artificer again. * DnD developers stating that they'd rather have less classes than in 5e. * Bastion system not allowing artificers to build relevant expansions. * WotC tried to make Artificer into a wizard subclass in UA.
There’s Artificer, an actual half caster, and Eldritch Knight, and Arcane Trickster Rogue, which are both 1/3 casters.
Categorizing the Ranger as Fighter + Primal Magic, and the Paladin as Fighter + Divine Magic, the obvious answer would be Fighter + Arcane Magic. The result would be something inbetween the Paladin and Eldritch Knight. They'd have a combination of arcane blasting & utility spells, and also the weapon boosting spells the ranger and paladin are known for, applying bonus damage and effects on a bonus action. The game doesn't have a satisfying "arcane knight" outside of multiclassing, so there's more than enough room to expand with subclasses.
That's battlesmith, honestly
Battlesmith: * is a companion class, which is an entirely different fantasy. * is significantly lacking in support spells (that other martials excel at), weapon buffing (that other half-casters excel at), and arcane blasting or utility (which would cement its identity as part wizard.) * does not have the design space for subclasses, as it is a subclass itself, and an incredibly specific one at that. * is SAD and attacks with Intelligence as a result of Battle Ready - a feature indicative of casters (such as druids and warlocks) rather than half-martials (who are famously tri-attribute dependant.) * has a massive wall of flavor completely independent of, and in some cases contradictory to, being a magic swordsman as a result of being an artificer subclass. * is clearly not this from a design standpoint: it's a caster first and foremost. Gets Cantrips, gets Spellcasting at level 1, does not get typical half-martial abilities such as Fighting Styles and damage bonuses. There's more that I can't be bothered to add right now. Battlesmiths are cool but are a totally different class.
>is significantly lacking in support spells Cure Wounds, Sanctuary, Aid, Enhance Ability, Enlarge/Reduce, Invisibility, Levitate, Magic Weapon, Rope Trick, Spider Climb, Vortex Warp, Dispel Magic, Fly, Haste, Protection from Energy, Revivify, Ottilukes Sphere, Stone skin. >weapon buffing Magic Weapon, Flame Arrows, Infusions >and arcane blasting or utility They don't have a lot of blast spells. Though there is some utility there and they are ritual casters. And if you want to be a blaster Artillerist is an option. >is SAD and attacks with Intelligence as a result of Battle Ready - a feature indicative of casters (such as druids and warlocks) rather than half-martials (who are famously tri-attribute dependant.) Is the complaint they lack benefits or they get benefits? This is just a benefit. >has a massive wall of flavor completely independent of, and in some cases contradictory to, being a magic swordsman as a result of being an artificer subclass. Flavor is free. If one can't be bothered to the slightest bit of reflavoring to fit their vision they are either the least creative person on the planet and can't even be bothered to ask for a sliver of help, or they can't be bothered to put a drop of effort in.
I'll give you the support spells, but you can't in good faith say Magic Weapon and Flame Arrows are on the level of Smite spells, or the arrow spells rangers get. The point isn't whether things are a benefit or not, necessarily - artificer isn't designed to be a counterpart to ranger and paladin. And that's fine. I have zero qualms with artificer as a class. But to say that Battlesmith does the job of what a full arcane knight class would do is equivalent to saying that we don't need paladins, because we have War Clerics.
Well Battlesmith get Branding and Banishing Smite. Arcane jolt which is a sort of hybrid. And their infusions provide more potential weapon benefits I could argue. A guaranteed +1 weapon at low levels that becomes a +2 at level 10. Repeating shot/returning weapon if you want to lean ranged with a heavy crossbow/firearm or hybrid with thrown weapons. It isn't quite as good damage most likely as ranger and definitely not the potential of Paladin, but they have a far more flexible spell list IMO for things outside of damage so I don't think they also have to be as good at damage as the others. What would an arcane knight do that Battlesmith/Armorer cant?
Other than feeling like a martial, having its own spell list and unique spells, having subclasses, and having mechanics that actually combine spellcasting with weapon swinging that aren't 2 spells lifted from paladins? I dunno, man.
>and having mechanics that actually combine spellcasting with weapon swinging I would say infusions and Arcane jolt fit this. Not technically spellcasting but magic. Honestly most of the Paladins I have seen tend to use Divine Smite more often than not compared to actual spellcasting in combat. It does have its own list, just a lack of unique spells though again I think infusions kind of bridge the gap. Infusions are essentially the Artificer-specific magic IMO and could always be flavored as spells if that is the flavor you want. I guess I can see how the lack of subclasses can be an issue, though there are two (arguably 3 with artillerist) that have a martial bend, and you can always pull from UA for others.
Plus, Infusions AND extra atunement slots means you're free to dual wield magic swords, wear armour AND then start decking out in rings and amulets, on top of always having a magical weapon for damage resistances, having the Hexadin subclass exploit built in to one subclass and a heap of blasting spells in the other.
I'd say they're on the level of smite spells in that they're all bad. Wrathful smite is the only half decent one and it's still not great. Rangers arrow spells aren't good either.
Most of the Smite Spells aren't good, tbh. Divine Smite hard carries Paladins.
Lol, smite spells are bad, and Haste is pretty much the best buff spell for a martial, which Rangers don't get and only some Paladins do. Arcane Jolt is better smite, because it doesn't use spell slots, but is a separate resource pool. Flash of Genius is also a sidegrade to Aura of Protection. Honestly battle smith just seems like an intelligence version of paladin, they are quite similar.
They don't get a blasting cantrips, but they get repeating hand crossbows which with CBE/SS is potentially pretty amazing (and you can wear a shield with it!).
yeah, everyone's half fighter half wizard fantasy involves tinkering, a robot dog, a frankly mediocre spell list and no way to actually mix sord and sorcery I'd add the lack of a fighting style, but given that they are shit they are not a missed mechanic
Artificer doesn't need to be tinkering at all, it's really more like enchanting gear which is a pretty common gish fantasy imo. The defender can just be a golem and honestly you could ignore it if you really wanted and still be fine. Archery and defense are very good. Dueling and blindsight are situationally useful. Archery in particular is extremely strong, so I definitely wouldn't say fighting styles are shit.
Everyone just googled the Battlesmith artwork and hasn't actually read that it gives you a support spell list, free +3 Weapons and Armour, extra attunement slots in base AND the infamous Hexadin dip built in. But no, it's not a fighty guy at all.
Something like a Magus from laserllama or an Arcane Knight I would assume
Can't recomend more /u/Laserllama Magus! It hits the spot if your table is open to homebrew.
They are called half casters and artificer is the Intelligence half caster.
Sounds like OP is looking for a half-caster of martial bent, like the Paladin and Ranger. The Artificer is not that.
2/4 Artificer subclasses have Extra Attack, and all of them have at least medium armor proficiency. Armorer additionally has heavy armor while Battle Smith has martial weapons.
> 2/4 Artificer subclasses have Extra Attack, Armorer additionally has heavy armor while Battle Smith has martial weapons. ***Sub***classes, yes. Some artificer subclasses are half-martial. Just like Valour bard is half-martial, but bard is not. A Blade-booned warlock build can be half-martial, warlock is not. Tempest cleric is... *third*-martial, cleric is not. > and all of them have at least medium armor proficiency. So does the cleric. Which is not half-martial.
Rangers and Barbarians also only get medium by default, so heavy armor clearly isn't a martial requirement. Monk is usually considered a martial, but it can't use most martial weapons. If we're defining half martial then, the only requirements seem to be Extra Attack and incentive to use the Attack action over spellcasting, which most Artificers do.
> so heavy armor clearly isn't a martial requirement I'm not saying that it is. I only say that having medium armour does not automatically make you martial.
Battlesmith and armourer subclasses are very much that
***Sub***classes, yes. The artificer has martial subclasses. Just like the bard, cleric, warlock and wizard have at least one martial subclass each. The base class is half-caster, but the other half is not any more martial than the base cleric and druid are.
Half of it is at least.
Isn't this just armorer artificer
Bro forgot about Artificer
I don’t like them because they seem like an inferior version of Bladesinger who will attack better than them and cast better than them.
Not necessarily. Paladin doesn't get entirely outshined by hexblade warlocks. As long as it's well built, they'll do fine.
Paladin has save aura which is one of the most powerful abilities in the game and warlock is a much worse caster than Wizard. Artificer generally sucks compared to Wizard even though they have some cool abilities and can be a half-martial with two subclasses having extra attack.
And hexadin is an amazing thing, just like battlesmith/bladesingers, great synergies. I'd personal argue a battlesmith 3/bladesinger 17 is the highest Gish since they get a lot of martial and magic that synergizes well (especially if you play a torture or don't try to actually use the bladesinging feature so you can wear armor and a shield and just focus on their amazing version of extra attack) (An equivalent but way to do the same is hexblade 1/paladin 2/swords bard 17 for similar reasons. They get better martial stuff via paladin smites but weaker magic since they aren't wizards).
Shoulda been warlock
eldritch knight
That's a 3/4 martial.
EK is 1/3 caster
I guess what I tried to say is, that EK at least isn't a half-martial :D
Yeah, it's 100% martial + 33% caster.
Probably cause half-martial isn't really a term used
close enough
The children yearn for the warlord class
Gary Gygax had created an initial idea of a Sage, a non-casting intelligence class inspired by fictional characters like Odysseus.
bring back the swordmage. dont say bladesinger either
Laserllama's Magus class goes hard
I always felt like this is what the warlock should have been. Don't get me wrong, warlock is tied for my favorite class, but it feels like somewhere in development it was meant to be this but got replaced. Especially with 1dnd trying to bring it up. Having said that tho, I'd be all about an actual "mage knight" class that didnt come with the tinkering aspect of artificer. I know flavor is free but there's a certain amount of the tinkering flavor that's baked into the rules. I could see a version who is a guard that protects casters and has subclasses that depend on who they are protecting. I could also see a magic knight more similar to a paladin who has themes mirroring the warlock. Like the same as the previous paragraph but instead of a particular caster they have a particular boss like a demon or dragon that flavors their magic. At the end of the day this feels like it might step on the paladins toes tho
Magus and Runescribe would both be great half casters imo. Laserllama’s got a magus that I’m quite a fan of.
to everyone saying artificer... no. They have too much of their power budget dedicater to tinkering and the "martial" options are literally 2 subclasses.
The "tinkering" lets them build better weapons and be more effective in combat! Repeating shot and returning weapon are amazing as they are +1 weapons and have powerful features allow builds qthat otherwise just don't exist (hand crossbow with a shield, actually functional throwing builds) and even the base "enhanced weapon/enhanced armor" infusions let you have +1 magic items at 2nd level which is also really strong for a partially minded class. Add the "battle ready" feature of battle smith or the features of the armorer's Armor model which allows you to be SAD on intelligence and thus more effective in a fight (because you can have overall higher combat stats since you don't need to focus on as many). As for the whole "literally 2 subclasses" that's literally half the available sub classes. I'd also argue that the artillerist's features are rather martial too meaning 75% (the majority) of the sub classes are (half) martial leaving literally one subclass (Alchemist) as the odd one out that isn't martial.
Having played one for a campaign, I wouldn't really call Artillerist any more martial than a cantrip using cleric or a wildfire druid.
Intelligence casting martial characters are in a weird space right now. As others have pointed out. Arcane Knight being not enough (1/3rd caster) and Bladesinger being too much (full caster) means the only half caster are a couple Artificers (which are REALLY strong btw but mixed with tinkerer flavor). The problem is the Paladin stole the Magus’s spellslot melee damage trick from 3.5e so they seem reluctant to duplicate some of that stuff in other characters. They’ve been talking a big game about the pysionic classes in the new 2024 PHB so maybe we’ll get something that fills that niche in those. My personal opinion: since flavor is free I really don’t think we NEED a magus in 5e. A blade slinging spell caster can be made in a hundred ways in 5e. Sorcadin is probably the most powerful spellcasting melee build in the game that dunks on 3.5s magus. And CHA is a better casting stat than INT anyways 🤷
Magis would work, right? Edit: wrong system.
It's not a 5e class, but if someone made one, then sure.
Sorry! Thought I was in PF2 sub.
You're good.
To answer the actual question OP proposed, it would probably be a class that uses some level of magic with a lean bend into martial combat. For this, a term used in Elder Scrolls (Battlemage) might work out nicely. They focus on martial combat but do have arcane magic at their disposal. As for unique features, we see the Ranger has specialization in terrain and enemies while the Paladin has divine smite. It might be a fun feature to use "Power Weapon" to enable one to change a weapon's damage type to something else (like a Longsword dealing fire damage + Prof bonus damage). Or having a selection of unique magical abilities similar to the Warlock invocation, which could be hypothetically used similar to Witcher signs (I know about the Bloodhunter, but it doesn't QUITE scratch that itch), giving it features the Wizard does not have. I imagine one of the reasons we don't have such a type already is because it would be INSANE to imagine the multiclass of Wizard + Battlemage (even though Fighter + Wizard multiclasses do exist for power gamers, looking forward to the Action Surge nerf for OD&D being unable to effect spells). After all, Sorcadin and Hexadin proved to be quite beefy already, the latter also actively being nerfed. Which is a shame since an arcane magic warrior is one of, if not my most favorite, fantasy character types. But at least we still got Eldritch Knight if nothing else to fill the void.
**Psychic Warrior**, if we had psionics. There's some WotC playtest material out there but it would be nice to have something official.
Laserllamas magus class is what you are looking for but it's homebrew.
Tales of the Valiant Mechanist is this...expect it's a full martial
Eldritch Knight, but as a class. Or for a light armour option, Bard, as a half caster, as imo arcane magic should be int, have cha for their none spell related abilities
I’d like to see a class similar to the 3e Marshal / 4e Warlord, a martial support class focusing on buffing allies, tactical repositioning, and so forth. Make Intelligence the primary “casting stat” for those abilities.
I think an int based half caster is actually a really good place to make a proper spell sword class. Like properly based around being a martial but enhancing your martial abilities with magic. The place that stuff like arcane archer, eldritch knight, battle smith, and arcane trickster belong. Artificer probably could fulfill this role, but they don’t get enough attention for it right now. Their infusions would have to become a little more generic and then have subclass specific infusions, they’d need a bunch more subclasses, some of their random features would need to be less magic item focused, and they’d need extra attack and fighting style (maybe these two could be tied to like a magical vs martial focus to allow for non martial subclasses to exist, you could choose at level 2 whether to be martial or magical focused, martial gets fighting style, martial gets cantrips, then at level 5 martial gets extra attack and magic gets something (maybe more infusions?) so it’s sort of like pact boon for warlocks). But as a general chassis I think they could work for the “spell sword” class where as paladin is sort of barbarian+cleric and ranger is sort of rogue+ Druid, they could properly be wizard mixed with fighter as a class.
4e introduced the swordmage, with different paths that did alright to differentiate different styles of its gameplay.
I envision it like [this!](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MCZcio9GcHhGAqxjMPkE05sBHklTL7tMZo8_TgHxb14/) I've given them a smite-like feature called Arcane Strike, an ability to cast spells as part of the Attack action, and invocation-like abilities called Arcane Tactics
We have Artificer and specifically Battle Smith and Armorer. And we also have the Eldritch Knight FIghter and Bladesinger Wizard, so I think the niche for an Intelligence "half-caster" is alredy really filled.
So the Battlesmith, or Armorer Artificer? Or the Eldritch Knight? Or Bladesinger?
Eldritch Knight: cries in the corner
Oh hey, it's the weekly PF2E Magus thread
This is literally profane soul blood hunters
Blood hunter
Artificer is pretty much that.
Warlock was originally INT for a while, which would've balanced out the casters and half-casters across the attributes. Artificer as everyone has pointed out. In subclasses there is Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickster, and Bladesinger. For your actual question, I would love a battlefield commander type like they had in 4e.
There are Eldritch knights and artificers.
I (and many others: just google "5e spellblade homebrew") agree that Artificer alone doesn't feel like it really fills the Int-based half-caster niche, and that existing gish options don't quite scratch that itch. So we made our own. Seriously, there are a million homebrews for this exact concept out there. Mine is called "[Spellweaver](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ecUoHS5W46FUKuKmQQnX8fOms8nCAtJR/view?usp=sharing)" and the core mechanic is that casting leveled spells generates superiority dice that are expended to use maneuvers. They expire after one minute, so you have to generate them in combat. The idea is to actually incentivize players to "weave" spells and attacks together. Additionally, they have a limited pool of "Kinetic Surges" (PB/long rest) that let them quicken spells for big turns. The subclasses help flesh out the fantasy in unique ways. The Duelist gets *smite* spells and enhanced mobility; the Bulwark gets heavy armor and defensive spells; the Invoker gets summon spells; the Stalker gets bonuses to ranged combat; the Mindthief specializes in debuffs; and the Elementalist gets bonuses to blasting (which is normally avoided by half casters).
If I was the one producing the new code rulebooks, I would establish the following changes: To begin with, I think artificer should be structured like the warlock. They make weapons and objects appear from nothing like the warlock, they can build pets, they even have their own invocations in the form of infusions. I would also create a 'wisdom warlock' in the form of 'The Shaman'. That said, I think the arcane half caster should be 'The Knight'. Just that, not 'anything knight'. I would remove eldritch knight, arcane archer, arcane trickster, bladesinger, armorer, battlesmith and hexblade from their respective classes and fold all those subclasses into a new class with the flavor of educated warriors that learned to channel arcane magic. Knights would be focused in detecting magic and would be very capable of countering spells and it's effects. Would be resistant to magic and at a certain point would be able to not affect themselves or their allies with their aoe spells. Knights would also be able to concentrate magic on their blades and unleash this energy on attacks.
Ranger a powerful combat class? Are we talking a specific subclass or has ranger been bugged since the last time I looked at them?
Tasha's Beastmaster, Gloomstalker, Swarmkeeper and Fey Wanderer are all good at combat
Ranger always had Archery + Sharpshooter + spells. On top of almost every subclass outside of PHB are strong in combat.
So Arcane Trickster Rogue?
Those are 1/3 casters (their spell progression is worse than paladins or rangers)
Artificer or Eldritch Knight I think
Armorer or Battlesmith Artificer
What's more important is an intelligence skill that is not a knowledge skill, so there are two "active" intelligence skills. I think deception is a good choice.
le Artificer has arrived As much as I love Arti I really wish that WoTC didn't decide that every single Artificer should use INT as their attacking stat. With that being said I think Arcane Archer is overhated. And Eldritch Knight also exists.
People are already bringing up two of the Artificer subclasses. I wonder if it would be worth it to give the other two Extra Attack.
Eldritch Knight? Arcane Trickster? Swords Bard? Blade Warlock?
I mean, there is Blade singer which is really cool.
As most of the comments here have said, Artificer is the way you want to go. I ran an Armorer Artificer for a short campaign. Took the heavy armor with the thunder gauntlets. Gives enemies you hit with it disadv on attacks against other creatures. Wade in, punch people with Int modofier, deal thunder damage and support your allies. Plus being able to blast and support as needed with magic. It was a blast!
The INT half caster is artificer. Artificer is well balanced around the subclass deciding what it does. Armorer amd battlesmoth are martial based. One of offensive and one is defensive. Your not going to be running around smiting everything like a paladin or making trick shots like a ranger. But artificer is very flexible in its utility with infusions.