Looking for consensus...Half- v. Full- Casters.

[steeldragons]

So I'm just kinda curious. I know what I think, but I want to hear what you all think...

Note: the tag is for Any D&D, and I'd like to hear for any edition or D&D-type system [PF, OSRs, etc...] but I'm also curious for 5e specifically.

What makes a class a Full Caster or a Half-caster?

The way I'm seeing it, it could be [at least] 1 of 4 things...
1) It's in the magichanics: The class has "full" or "half" prepared spells/slots. Where a full caster class might have 4 1st level and 2 2nd level spells at 3rd level, the Half-caster class might only have 3 1st, or 2 1st and 1 2nd.
2) It's in the spell lists: While the full caster gets a list of, say, 20 spells to choose from for each spell level, the half-caster only has 10. Or a full caster gets everything on the spell list, but an [what I'm reading about the] Eldritch Knight, only gets certain types/schools of magic. But then does that make wizard specialists "half casters"? That won't work. This may or may not be in conjunction with #1, combining overall mechanical limitations together: less slots AND selection, for example.
3) It's in the equipment: The full caster uses all (or primarily) spells/magic. The half-caster has spells (which may or may not be as numerous as the full) but has suitable ability with armor and weapons so their "primary" mode for adventuring is/can be split between weapons combat and magic use. Clerics and Druids fall in here as they are generally considered "full casters" but have the armor and weapons to (generally) shake it up toe-to-toe if they want/need to.
4) It's in the "scale" [for lack of a better term to come up with at the moment]: A full caster, obviously, gets spells at 1st level/right away. The half-caster doesn't get access to spells until later OR a scale of some kind that casters would gain spell slots/levels/prepared options every level and "halfcasters", like, (literally half) every other level.....and does where that "later" is matter? A la, were the 1e Ranger and Paladin, who didn't get spell access until 8th or 9th level, "less than half-casters"? As opposed to some other version or class, like I could see bards or warlocks maybe, that get spells starting at 3rd or 5th?

Do all of these play in? Other things? What makes the class a "Caster" class or a "Half-caster" class...or is that a distinction that no one really cares about at all?! "I get some cool magic stuff to do. I don't care what my class is considered."

I guess this is being born from reading the Ranger thread and my general disappointment that Rangers, in 5e (and it seems at least 4e), have magic from the word go. Paladins too, but in my experience, 1) Rangers get played a whole lot more often. and 2) Paladins always had their magicky powers, even if they didn't get spells per se...though I wouldn't consider either of them "caster" classes in older editions. So my disappointment is more geared toward the ranger.

It is, I'll admit, a bit of a metagame concern but could also have "in game" consequences. How full mages/spell-casting priests/etc...view and interact with "dabblers" or other classes that might be viewed as ignorant or incapable or "don't take magic as seriously as they should" ? The Mage's guild offering access to their library and component resources to a Wizard or Bard (in exchange for some of their collected knowledge) but telling the Sorcerer or Warlock to take a walk in the bog. The Caster-cleric branch of the Temple of Holymagicbatman looking down their noses as the more martially trained warrior-clerics (who are in charge of temple's defense, mind you), the Holymetalswingers branch of the order, even though they are sworn to the same deity. That kind of thing.

So there are in-game uses for such out-of-game distinctions.

Your thoughts?

 

[TwoSix]

So I'm just kinda curious. I know what I think, but I want to hear what you all think...

Note: the tag is for Any D&D, and I'd like to hear for any edition or D&D-type system [PF, OSRs, etc...] but I'm also curious for 5e specifically.

What makes a class a Full Caster or a Half-caster?

The way I'm seeing it, it could be [at least] 1 of 4 things...
1) It's in the magichanics: The class has "full" or "half" prepared spells/slots. Where a full caster class might have 4 1st level and 2 2nd level spells at 3rd level, the Half-caster class might only have 3 1st, or 2 1st and 1 2nd.

To my mind, it's a purely mechanical distinction. In 5e, paladins and rangers are half-casters, because their spell progression for slots is exactly half that of a full caster. (A 10th level paladin casts as a 5th level cleric). In 3.X/PF, I consider the classes that go up to 6th level spells (bard, inquistor, magus, etc) as half casters. Classes that go up to 4th level spells are partial casters.

It's an imprecise terminology, and in my settings, there's no recognition of the game mechanics by the game world.

 

[Tony Vargas]

What makes a class a Full Caster or a Half-caster?

3e has the clearest answer for this: half-caster have a caster level of half their class level, full-casters the levels are equal.

More generally, half-casters give up a lot of casting ability - spells or slots per day, smaller spell lists, lower caster level - for some non-casting abilities, usually melee ability, sometimes skills or special abilities.

I guess this is being born from reading the Ranger thread and my general disappointment that Rangers, in 5e (and it seems at least 4e), have magic from the word go. Paladins too, but in my experience, 1) Rangers get played a whole lot more often. and 2) Paladins always had their magicky powers, even if they didn't get spells per se...though I wouldn't consider either of them "caster" classes in older editions. So my disappointment is more geared toward the ranger.

The Ranger and Paladin have cast spells in every edition but 4e - not always at first level, but they've always gotten spells/day, either lifted from full-caster lists, or from their own lists. In 4e, the Paladin's powers were all 'Divine' source, so supernatural, like spells, though technically prayers, and some used weapons, while others used implements (spells in the more traditional sense), OTOH, the Ranger was a martial class, no spells of any kind (in Essentials, two ranger sub-classes with some Primal powers, all utilities, were introduced).

So the weight of tradition is on the side of the spellcasting Ranger, FWIW.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

In my mind, a half-caster is specifically an inferior version of another class, in terms of spellcasting. A paladin is not as good as a cleric, and a ranger is not as good as a druid, just as the eldritch knight is not as good as the wizard.

If you had a new type of spellcasting, and that only went up to 5th level spells, then the class which used that type of spellcasting would still be a full caster of that type. It's just that the type of magic isn't particularly powerful.