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

[Tigris]

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.

This would also just mirror the unneeded "martials are simple" stereotype. And does not solve the situation of a child wanting to play a spell slinger.

 

[Yaarel]

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.

I view the Swordmage class as a fullcaster whose spells are melee range. Spells like Mage Armor and hit point regeneration stay on the frontlines of combat.

Also, I hope unarmed combat is also a choice among weapon specializations.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I view the Swordmage class as a fullcaster whose spells are melee range. Spells like Mage Armor and hit point regeneration stay on the frontlines of combat.

Also, I hope unarmed combat is also a choice among weapon specializations.

okay, but melee casting is still not the typical caster experience so my point stands.

 

[Zardnaar]

okay, but melee casting is still not the typical caster experience so my point stands.

Its not newbie friendly either.

 

[Lanefan]

No. This does not have to be.

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

How can that be, given that the caster's player (as was already pointed out [edit to add] by you!) ideally has to become familiar with a long list of spells that a martial's player does not.

Also, 4e gave martials a bunch of powers and thus brought their overall complexity level up significantly.

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

If the martial charcter is made more complex than it has to be, then sure. But the simplest martial types will by default be simpler than any caster unless the caster only knows one or two spells, ever.

If you've a way of making a caster play as simple as an "I swing, I hit, I roll damage" martial I'm all ears.

 

[Lanefan]

I think just as there is a Champion subclass for the fighter that really gets a new player going quickly with a decently powerful ability yet passive ability, there should be a similar subclass for the arcane casters that is just the dead simple PC choice for a new player. I think the closest class out of the box that approaches this is an Eldritch Blast spamming warlock. My daughter played D&D for the first time about a month ago, and I think she appreciated the blaster aspect of the warlock combined with having a couple of spells for special occasions. Nothing felt overwhelming to her and she was decently powerful.

Warlock, however, comes with all that Patron baggage attached; which not everyone wants or needs.

Strip that away and you're on to something here, though it wouldn't be a Warlock any more.

 

[Marandahir]

I love the 5e Sorcerer, but if an Arcane Class had to be "simple" in the sense of the Fighter, Sorcerer has the historic baggage there.

But I prefer Sorcerer as the Metamagician that gains power from innate magic as it's become.

And I'm not at all sure how you'd make a simple spellcaster without a system like, say 4e. When Spells are a shared resource of defined abilities that various classes can access, it kinda makes all spellcasters complicated.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

having access to half the content of 14 classes is IMO preferable to having all the content of 7 classes.

The really nasty design chore there would be trying to even vaguely balance the simple version of any given class with its complex version such that both could be played at the same table.

 

[Zardnaar]

Warlock, however, comes with all that Patron baggage attached; which not everyone wants or needs.

Strip that away and you're on to something here, though it wouldn't be a Warlock any more.

Warlocks best designed 5.5 class imho.

Not the best class (there isnt one imho).

 

[Lanefan]

2.5 inclusion. You dont want to exclude people (children, old people who cant remember long texts good enough, people who might have some problems concentrating on overly long texts etc.) From playing certain kind of class fantasies. There is a reason its called "You are a wizard Harry" and not "Sorry only people who love reading long texts and learn them by heart like Hermione can be Wizards, Harry".

Harry was a wild mage as a kid; keep in mind he had to go to school for seven years in order to learn a) how to control his powers and then b) a whole lot of cool things he could do with them.

Never mind he did have to learn his spells by heart, only they were usually very short one or two word castings e.g. Alohomora or Wingardium Leviosa.