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

[Umbran]

because if you design all classes the same to have both simple and complex options then everybody gets to have access to all classes, rather than being split between choosing 'the simple classes' and 'the complex classes' if they don't want to play one or the other.

With respect, I was responding to (what I thought was), "all classes start simple, and get complex". As in, there would be no simple high-level options.

I think the goal of having all classes be simple, but also possibly complex, and all be reasonably balanced, is asking too much - too difficult a design challenge. If you can do it, by all means have at it, but I don't think it s a reasonable expectation to have of designers.

 

[CreamCloud0]

With respect, I was responding to (what I thought was), "all classes start simple, and get complex". As in, there would be no simple high-level options.

I think the goal of having all classes be simple, but also possibly complex, and all be reasonably balanced, is asking too much - too difficult a design challenge. If you can do it, by all means have at it, but I don't think it s a reasonable expectation to have of designers.

ah, i read 'all classes start simple, get complex' as all classes are fundamentally simple by baseline but your choices of subclass and suchlike can add complexity to their playstyle or keep things straightforward.

 

[Zardnaar]

That's why 5E blew up. Variety of simple and complexity.

You pick one size fits all you alienate everyone outside that paradigm.

You'll never get perfect and people demanding it will get left out.

5.5 is getting close. Whiffed here and there and complexity level may be slightly to high. Ymmv. Its about right for me but I'm not representative of everyone else.

 

[Yaarel]

The "simple mage" should be the Swordmage. It should feel like a superhero with a handful of versatilely useful and increasingly effective superpowers. Balancing with other caster classes at the lowest and highest levels is a design priority.

It chooses two subclasses to predetermine the superpower-like spells, at level 1 and again at level 3.

Other caster classes can also select these spells, if they wish.

Spells that resemble a superpower should "occupy" a spell slot (or a number of spell points). The spell is always on, and can be used at will, but meanwhile the slot cannot be used for anything else.


Edit. On viewing the vote results, I am on board with the Sorcerer being the superhero class that emphasizes the choices for always-on spells.

 

[Minigiant]

Why would we assume that something like "spell slots" are even a thing?

13th age does not have spell slots in its 2nd edition and is made by 2 former D&D lead designers.

But of course there is still some form of ressources and the question still stays if a simple class needs to have ressources.


I would say not necessarily, but having classes with no ressources and classes with ressources in the same game does make a fixed adventuring day necessarily.

That requires all classes to be resourceless, which currently isn't the standard.

As long as the rogue is a class that on base has no resources other than hit points and a fighter is continuously pushed to have as little resources as it possibly can while fulfilling the roles and tropes that people impose on it, there is room for a resourceless arcane caster and resourceless divine caster.

 

[aco175]

In all of 5e years, I have not seen anyone play a sorcerer. I'm sure there might be some cool things and combos and such, but I have not seen anyone play one so might as well make that class cooler.

I might just have a cut down spell list and use sorcery points to boost spells in ways like extra damage or hit more people and stuff like metamagic has now. You can also add something like the rogue's cunning action that lets you do something like fly for 1 round or go invisible for 1 round.

Another option is to go old school and have the spells boost by level and only have a few spells.

 

[Zardnaar]

In all of 5e years, I have not seen anyone play a sorcerer. I'm sure there might be some cool things and combos and such, but I have not seen anyone play one so might as well make that class cooler.

I might just have a cut down spell list and use sorcery points to boost spells in ways like extra damage or hit more people and stuff like metamagic has now. You can also add something like the rogue's cunning action that lets you do something like fly for 1 round or go invisible for 1 round.

Another option is to go old school and have the spells boost by level and only have a few spells.

I see a lot of Sorcerers and Warlocks.

Havent seen a wizard rolled up since 2019.

I play with newer players a lot and try seem to love things like them, barbarians and tieflings/elves.

 

[Charlaquin]

With respect, I was responding to (what I thought was), "all classes start simple, and get complex". As in, there would be no simple high-level options.

Ah, yeah, your reaction makes much more sense to me in that context. I agree that would be a poor way to go about it.

I think the goal of having all classes be simple, but also possibly complex, and all be reasonably balanced, is asking too much - too difficult a design challenge. If you can do it, by all means have at it, but I don't think it s a reasonable expectation to have of designers.

I suspect this is related to us having different ideas of what “simple” and “complex” mean here. Fundamentally I do agree there’s probably an upper limit to how far a single class could reasonably scale from simple to complex. But I think it’s entirely possible to make all classes able to range from, let’s say “approachable” to “rewarding.” Would all options be perfectly balanced? Probably not. But, perfect balance probably isn’t a desirable goal anyway.

 

[Charlaquin]

ah, i read 'all classes start simple, get complex' as all classes are fundamentally simple by baseline but your choices of subclass and suchlike can add complexity to their playstyle or keep things straightforward.

Yeah, your reading was how I meant it, but I can see where it could be easily misunderstood.

 

[CreamCloud0]

The "simple mage" should be the Swordmage.

i disagree, the swordmage as a weapon-oriented melee combat class is/would be a significantly different playstyle to the standard caster experience and would be a wildly misleading first impression for anyone wanting to try their hand at playing a caster.