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

[Horwath]

Sorcerer.
fewest known/prepared spells.
more spell slots/spell points
ignore all spell components except material with a cost over 1GP
adds prof bonus or cha bonus or both to damage/heal.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

"Simpler than other casters" is probably the best we can shoot for here, unless the class is to have no real variety or flexibility in its spells and be a one-trick pony all its life.

A streamlined Fighter or Thief/Rogue is always going to be simpler and (mechanically) easier to play than the most basic of casters will ever be, but as this discussion is specific to arcane casters a 3e-style Sorcerer with no metamagic or other complexifying overhead is and remains my suggestion.

 

[Tigris]

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.

The 4e elementalist itself is also simple enough. You choose 1 out of 4 elements (ehivh give some bonus), initially 1 of 2 ares attack at wills (+ get a single target at will from tje element) and get an elemental per encounter "improve at will".


And I in general hope that 6e will be its own edition, and not another 5e homebrew so that one needs to adapt all classes anyway to the new system.

 

[Tigris]

A streamlined Fighter or Thief/Rogue is always going to be simpler and (mechanically) easier to play than the most basic of casters will ever be

No. This does not have to be.

4e simplest caster is as simple as the 4e dumped down martials.


This is just an old relic from times where good gamedesign was not yet invented.


There is no inherent reason why a simple caster needs to be more complex than a martial character.

 

[Corinnguard]

And I in general hope that 6e will be its own edition, and not another 5e homebrew so that one needs to adapt all classes anyway to the new system.

6e IMO will be a mix of whatever worked for 5e, fixes for whatever didn't work for 5e and some new stuff. Hopefully the new stuff will simplify the rest.

 

[CreamCloud0]

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.

we had a similar thread not all that long ago and nobody could agree on what was the simplest caster, all the fullcasters ended being suggested, even druid.
"sorcerer is the simple caster because it has the fewest spell slots"
"metamagic is so complicated, warlock is the simplest because it only has 2/3 spell slots to worry about"
"but only having 3 slots means you've got to be far more on the ball with your spell use, cleric is the simple caster"
"clerics have channel divinity to worry about and are far more martial than other casters wizard is simplest it's just a spell list"
"but wizards have so many spells to keep track of and scribing..."
and so on and so forth

 

[Horwath]

No. This does not have to be.

4e simplest caster is as simple as the 4e dumped down martials.


This is just an old relic from times where good gamedesign was not yet invented.


There is no inherent reason why a simple caster needs to be more complex than a martial character.

this is why 4E is mostly hated.
at any given level every class had the same number of at wills, the same number of encounters, the same number of dailies, the same number of utility power.

the same level of boring.

and when you progress in levels, new powers costs you having old powers.

unless you give everyone default multiclass option so that they can pick powers for their level from any class.(not costing you a feat) that makes character creation and play interesting.

 

[Tigris]

this is why 4E is mostly hated.
at any given level every class had the same number of at wills, the same number of encounters, the same number of dailies, the same number of utility power.

the same level of boring.

and when you progress in levels, new powers costs you having old powers.

unless you give everyone default multiclass option so that they can pick powers for their level from any class.(not costing you a feat) that makes character creation and play interesting.

I was speaking about the simplest 4e classes, which have a different progression from the normal ones which you mention.

So before talking about 4e do your homework. Both the simplest caster and the simplest martial do not have daily abilities, and do not replace old abilities with new ones and they also have additional simple class features at different than normal levels.

Also small kids also hate to brush their teeth does not mean its bad.


I get it at the time 4e came along a lot of people where old D&D players not understanding modern game design because they never played a modern game in their live and they were angry because they could not adapt to the change.

But today many of these old folk are dead (and until 6e releases even more of them will be) and most people playing 5e know modern games like magic the gathering or Mobas, so they have the ability do understand that different classes can be mechanically different even if they have the same progression.

 

[delericho]

Either the sorcerer or a new class - it depends on how many classes the hypothetical 6e has.

Alternately, rebuild all the classes with a simple chassis that you can then optionally add complexity to. Though that would be a fairly radical reworking of the game, I think.

 

[Tigris]

Either the sorcerer or a new class - it depends on how many classes the hypothetical 6e has.

Alternately, rebuild all the classes with a simple chassis that you can then optionally add complexity to. Though that would be a fairly radical reworking of the game, I think.

I fully agree with everything here.

And speaking about radical reworking: 3E, 4e and 4e were all radical reworkings compsred to the previous edition.


Also game design (especially outside rpgs) evolved a lot since 5e released, so I dont see this as so impossible.


Also if you think about the suits st wotc/hasbro.

D&D is s 100 million dollar (per year) franchise. So next step would be a billion dollar franchise like League of Legends, Overwatch, etc.

So I could see some suits looking at League of legends with 300 million players and even wanting "moba like classes".

So classes having 1 or 2 basic attacks (secondary weapon) which would be weapon attacks with weapon mastery or cantrips.

1-3 abilities you can use once or twicr per combat.

1 ultimate ability which you can only use once every phew fights.

And a passive.



However, if we dont look at moba/hero shooter design. Having simple chassis is not that impossible.


5.24 could not change subclasses to level 1 because thats too complicated so they made recommended starting level 3.


In a 6E everyone could get their subclass at level 1 and make level 1 in 6e equal to level 3 in 5e.

There might be a tutorial level 0 before for people new to the game, but making the desired starting level to level 1 makes it easier for everyone.


Now how they could not standartize the subclasses in 5e because of the different base class power levels, and had hard tome making good subclasses for casters because of their loe subvlass power budge, it would make sense to make the base classes really simple (as I proposed before) and have a lot of power and potential compleity come from the subclass.


We have in 5e already the martials which gain spellcasting over subclass. So they know this works so no reason to not try this also with casters.