D&D General [+] For (hypothetical) 6e: Which arcane caster class should be the "simple" one?

[EzekielRaiden]

Exactly what it says on the tin. I am, personally, of the opinion that D&D has almost never had an actually simple caster. Note the [+] thread; if you don't believe there should even be simple classes, this isn't the thread for you. I respect your opinion but it would not be fruitful to discuss it here.

If you think more than one should be simple, you can pick up to three options.

As always with my polls, you cannot change your vote after voting, nor see the results until you've voted. If you are unsure what you would vote, ask for clarification first! Poll will close in two months.

 

[Tigris]

It depends a bit on how many classes 6E would have.


If its just 13 or so, then the sorcerer, because that one is in general the one least distinct from the wizard.


If we think about harry potter (who is today highly associated with wizard and who knows like 3 spells or maybe 5) it could also be the wizard, but I think that would annoy old players.



If there are a bit more classes, then I would reintroduce the elementalist from 4E. I think an element based blaster caster with inborn talent and not many different spells is really fitting.


Also if we have subclasses similar to 5e but from level 1, then I would do several (if not all) base classes simple and put the complexity behind subclasses (give them a bigger power budget).


Like the sorcerer would only get 2 cantrips and sorcery points (but low number but they are more impactfull per point) in the main class. With 1 use for sorcery points (lets say upgrading cantrips)


And then the elementalist subclass would give them upgrades to the cantrips basic elemental features and improve the upgrade to cantrips.


A wizard would get cantrips and 1 signature spell they could cast X times per day at highest level in base class.


A simple subclass would improve cantrips and the signature spell and allow a 2nd one.


A warlock would only get eldritch blast (or eldritch strike) + 1-2 other cantrips + hex as a class feature.

A simple subclass would also improve cantrips and hex.



And then the "normal" subclasses would introduce full casting to these classes.



To not piss off old people, one could make it a bit more like PF1s archetypes.


Like you have the main class description in the book include the "most signature" subclass in its writing, with subclass features marked with a star. One of them being full casting. And subclasses then replace these features like archetypes in Pathfinder 1.

here an example from the PF1 inspired Final Fantasy D20: Iaijutsu Master (an example of a subclass replacing the base classes main ressource feature).

Or here is one which reduces a full caster to a 3/4 caster: Muscle Mage

 

[Minigiant]

Separate class.
Just Cantrips and Cantrips upgrade automatically

 

[Lanefan]

Sorcerer - same as the 3e version where it has spells, it has slots, and it's good to go. No preparation or pre-memorization, nothing to track except slots remaining, if the spell's on your list and you've got a slot of that level* left for the day, you can cast it. Easy peasy. Regains slots on long rest only.

* - yes, this specifically means no upcasting or other metamagics that only serve to add complexity - spells that scale (of which ideally there'd be relatively few) would automatically do so with level.

 

[CreamCloud0]

i do not think there should be 'a' lone simple caster, picked simple subclasses.

 

[Tigris]

Sorcerer - same as the 3e version where it has spells, it has slots, and it's good to go. No preparation or pre-memorization, nothing to track except slots remaining, if the spell's on your list and you've got a slot of that level* left for the day, you can cast it. Easy peasy. Regains slots on long rest only.

* - yes, this specifically means no upcasting or other metamagics that only serve to add complexity - spells that scale (of which ideally there'd be relatively few) would automatically do so with level.

I dont see how this is easy. Sure simpler than some other casters but its still:

Tracking up to 9 different ressources + needing to know 10-20 spells (+ most likely selecting from a big spell list) is way more complex than the most complex fighter subclass in 5e.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

@EzekielRaiden I submitted my vote without noticing that I had They should all be simple selected. Ignore that vote...

 

[Corinnguard]

If there are a bit more classes, then I would reintroduce the elementalist from 4E.

The Manual of Adventurous Resources: Complete for Level Up has an Elementalist class. While it was designed with 5e in mind, it looks simple enough IMO to use for any future 6e.

Just voted for a brand new simple arcane caster.

 

[Cergorach]

Kind of depends on how you define 'simple' and for whom... People that have been playing D&D for 30-40 years will find a default Wizard the most simple class to play. I would not count the Sorceror with all the Metamagic stuff and Spellpoints a simple class either in this edition. For a new player... It depends a default Wizard might still be the most simple, although a Warlock might also be a good option.

 

[Shiroiken]

Sorcerer needs a niche, and being the "innate" caster gives it a reason to be the simple design.