D&D 5E (2024) Mearls has some Interesting Ideals about how to fix high level wizards.

[tetrasodium]

Well, I would also trim back the spell list wizards get by default and add more choices via subclass.

But as mentioned upthread, it's hard to do every type of elementalist without either new spells or just shrugging and saying "well, I guess your fireball is an earthball or something now," which isn't a satisfying approach much of the time.

I think that's more of a symptom of shifting from specialist(?)/banned schools and short PrCs that can carry base abilities as appropriate to monolithic 1-20 subclasses that need to follow the base class's flow

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Well, I would also trim back the spell list wizards get by default and add more choices via subclass.

But as mentioned upthread, it's hard to do every type of elementalist without either new spells or just shrugging and saying "well, I guess your fireball is an earthball or something now," which isn't a satisfying approach much of the time.

I felt the 4e Elementalist did a reasonable job. But yes, there are places where one must ask how to implement small variations (like choice of element) without making that choice feel either irrelevant or punishing.

That said? Toph absolutely used "earthball" on the regular and it was very effective. Maybe a good exemplar is what we need, rather than needing to add 17 new spells with every subclass to ensure they're well-stocked?

 

[Tigris]

I felt the 4e Elementalist did a reasonable job. But yes, there are places where one must ask how to implement small variations (like choice of element) without making that choice feel either irrelevant or punishing.

That said? Toph absolutely used "earthball" on the regular and it was very effective. Maybe a good exemplar is what we need, rather than needing to add 17 new spells with every subclass to ensure they're well-stocked?

Elementalist is one of my favorite 4E classes. Its a really simple caster done well.
Something which pretty much no D&D like achieved.

It had some small flaws, but overall it is simple but still has 4 different elements which work and also feel different.

• Having 1 signature spell (like eldritch blast) which gets elemental damage and small rider depending on the element
• Having a choice of 2 different other area attack at wills per element
• And only needing a limited use/ressource power up for their at will attacks (which works for all of them)
• Having small element depending passives + different enhancements (besides the damage) on the powerup

It reminds me a bit about beacon, showing that you dont need much things to make a different feeling class/subclass.

 

[Minigiant]

To be fair

You can make Fireball, Earthball, Iceball, and Lightningball very different if you honestly try.

Again

More Classes.

An Elementalist would be a great addition as 5e's first official AEDU class.

 

[Zardnaar]

And I have seen far too many instances of "simplifying" that have resulted in driving away tons of fans, harming a game as a result, because "all simple all the time" gets boring. It's easy to slide in and easy to slide right back out, meaning you get people but you can't keep them.

Texture matters. Achievement matters. Depth matters. All simple all the time is like candy. It tastes great and will sell, but it's the first thing to be put away when folks have had their fill, and people get sick of it if they over-indulge. Complexity is like an actual meal, even if a plain one like spaghetti and meatballs or something. It isn't as fun or exciting or luxurious as candy, but it's something you can eat three days a week and enjoy.

Simplicity has value. Lots of it, in fact. But this obsession with simplifying everything until it is a perfectly smooth surface with zero texture is a bad choice, hands down. Complexity has long term value. Pretending it doesn't will be the death of D&D, sooner or later.

Depends on which way fanbase swing. Modern trends seem to be simpler though. You and me aren't typical for D&D players.

One reason i suspect 5.5 wont last like 5.0 is the complexity level. Its higher for newbies and casuals.

 

[Zardnaar]

My experience differs.

Its fairly simple. Fighters get indomitable and the first 8 levels are fairly front loaded.

Barbarian falls off level 11ish. Not as hard as Ranger.

At higher levels indomitable, paladin aura, 3rd attack and radiant strikes+ everything beat Barbarians.

Monks get proficiency in all saves. I had a Barbarian player liked amount of damage he was doing. "Whats your wisdom save like?"

Bonus action wisdom save 30' radius iirc. Feared. DC 16 or 17 wisdom save Nalfeshnee iirc.

Barbarian rage also got indirectly nerfed.

 

[Distracted DM]

A5E's 3pp has an Elementalist class that's pretty cool. I think it's in MoAR Complete? You can see the messy version on the fan Foundry A5E site (messy cuz it's just the info pulled from the FoundryVTT files).

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Elementalist is one of my favorite 4E classes. Its a really simple caster done well.
Something which pretty much no D&D like achieved.

100% fully agreed. I think the Sorcerer (far more so than the Warlock) makes an excellent platform for being the "Simple Mage", if you can build it to do that. That's one of the reasons why I liked the "Next" playtest version. With some careful attention, I think even in the 5e model it could be made to work with the four classical elements, possibly with additional options later on. E.g. you could add Metal as an alternative, allowing you to express Wuxing aka the Five Phases; possibly also Wood, since although Wood is associated with air/wind, it's more about growth. Other classics include Lightning (if "Wind" is flavored mostly as literal wind), Ice, "Void", "Aether", etc.--the ancients had plenty of ideas about what "elements" could exist.

In general, I find that "simple" classes are better served with bespoke class features, with clear and straightforward uses (but still open to some degree of creativity), while "complex" classes are better served with the laundry list of spells that they have to carefully navigate. Hence why I dislike it so much when people float Warlock as the "simple" caster--it is anything but. It is only "simple" in the very limited sense that you have fewer spells to memorize the behavior of. In every other way, it is a complex beast; you have to build the class yourself, think really carefully about resource management, and project not just turns or combats ahead, but days or even levels ahead of where you're currently at. It is not a low-complexity class; it is simply less rote memorization, but much more cognitive overhead in basically all other areas.

The Warlock is for people who like advanced classes but want to tinker with their internals. A simple caster needs to have a very simple baseline, which might be augmented, if and only if the player opts in for such a thing. E.g. I could see perhaps "Magic" as an Elementalist variant (or subclass, if it's a distinct class), where you have only the basic Elementalist class features, BUT you get limited spellcasting keyed off your Constitution modifier.

It had some small flaws, but overall it is simple but still has 4 different elements which work and also feel different.

• Having 1 signature spell (like eldritch blast) which gets elemental damage and small rider depending on the element
• Having a choice of 2 different other area attack at wills per element
• And only needing a limited use/ressource power up for their at will attacks (which works for all of them)
• Having small element depending passives + different enhancements (besides the damage) on the powerup

It reminds me a bit about beacon, showing that you dont need much things to make a different feeling class/subclass.

Beacon? I'm not familiar with the term. But yes, I agree--the 4e Elementalist Sorcerer should either be its own distinct class, or it should be a robust Sorcerer subclass, at least when translated into 5e.

 

[zakael19]

Beacon? I'm not familiar with the term. But yes, I agree--the 4e Elementalist Sorcerer should either be its own distinct class, or it should be a robust Sorcerer subclass, at least when translated into 5e.

Beacon is a 4e descendent game that takes a bunch of Final Fantasy inspirations, and manages to make a d20 PBTA work.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Beacon is a 4e descendent game that takes a bunch of Final Fantasy inspirations, and manages to make a d20 PBTA work.

I'll have to check it out when I'm not otherwise occupied. Thanks!