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

[doctorbadwolf]

Possibly, in which case I would love to better understand how you intend to use the term.

For my part, a simple class is one where the gameplay resembles the 5e fighter (assuming a simple subclass).

Good simple design features:

• A small number of individual moving parts
• higher level features that lean on lower level features rather than adding new things
• A fairly small number of choices during character creation and leveling up, or at the very least careful pacing of those choices so that the player isn't making very many choices at one time
• At most a single feature that is complex to use in the moment, but preferable none.
  • Complexity to use means that it requires active engagement with the mechanical specifics in order to use the feature, like having to read a spell description every time you use it.

Spells are inherently more complex than weapons, in dnd. This is why dnd almost never has simple spellcasting classes.

This is why my proposal involves taking things like damage types/elements, and schools of magic, and making them work like weapons and skills for that class, so that when the Blaster Caster wants to zap someone, they just make a spell attack, and it's always an attack never asking for a save, and their Ice Magic always does 1d6 plus modifier, and the target's speed is reduced by 10ft, just like using a weapon with teh Slow Weapon Mastery.

Then Schools of magic come in, you learn maybe 2 at level 1, and they work like a magic skill. Just a description of what you can do with them, and leverage the conversation of the game to actually use them. No spells. Spells only come in with subclasses or as your "fighting style".

So,


Mana Points. You start with a number equal to your class level plus your spellcasting modifier. Things cost roughly 1 point per spell level equivalent, with as simple guidelines as we can manage. The DMG spell point table is completely unacceptable for a simple caster class. If the player has to check the chart to see how much a thing costs rather than just going, "Oh it's a level 3 effect, so it costs 3 points", you have failed to make the class simple. Ideally, the table showing how many points a given effect costs can be designed to fit on a class cheat sheet that all classes have, that is like the little sidebar sheets for daggerheart. Honestly, costing more powerful effects is probably the most inherently and unavoidably complex aspect of the class, but i think that it can be kept to a table that takes half or less space than the class feature by level table.


Choose 2 Elemental Masteries. You can Ready any element because you are proficient in all of them, but you can use the Elemental Mastery Properties of a Readied Element that you have chosen to Master. Each element has a range, damage type, damage die, and a mastery property. Possibly 1 or 2 other properties, but unless we are going to make this just generally part of how magic works in place of attack cantrips, best to avoid making the player learn a bunch of properties rather than just the ones they have chosen to master.

Spend mana to add range, damage dice, or make it AoE.

Choose 1 or 2 School Proficiency. These are a little more complex to use in that they are like skills, but I think a good designer can make them have good descriptions that give the scope and usage of each school with general rules for what you can do when you spend Mana.

Choose a Spellcasting Style. This is the dial, other than subclass choice, for complexity. You can specialize in Implements, gain a spellbook, specialize in a damage type by ignoring resistance to it and adding spellcasting mod to damage against creatures that don't have any resistance to it normally, and some other options that help shape how the class plays.

Subclass.

Number of attacks scales like the fighter, with some subclasses giving ways to spend more than one attack to do a powerful thing.

At least one subclass would be like the Champion for the Fighter, just higher crit chance and extra spellcasting style and something like "spend 1 mana to add 1d6 to a skill check or attack roll" type thing.

If people want a game that simple, start selling Hero Quest again.

They are selling it again. or least as of 2020ish they were. I got the full set of expansions and everything. It is a fantastic game.

Huh. I went with Warlock, but, so many folks went with Sorcerer. How is a Sorcerer a "simple" caster? Good grief, even a fairly low level sorc has a dozen options in any given round.

A simple caster has 3 spells. One for offense, one for defense and one for utility. The effects can be modified as needed based on level but, you never, ever have more than three choices at any given time.

To me, that's what a simple character looks like.

Hmmm that is a good point. I think to be a "cast class" as such, It has to at least have the ability to boost their magic, so either spell slots or mana points, or warlock style automatic upgrading.

So...I wonder if this could be combined with my idea for a simple caster, where instead of cantrips you have "spell weapons" that are like "Ice, 1d6 cold damage, range 60ft/120ft, Slow,"etc.

The complex wizard class would add layers of complexity with stuff like different implements changing or adding properties, magical fighting styles, a spellbook, etc.

The simple one could either have very few spells known that are fairly simple, with a list including stuff similar to Hex, Misty Step, Disguise Self, Armor of Agythis, etc. You know 3, maybe you even have to choose each from the categories you suggest, Offense, Defense, Utility.

Then you can use your Mana to boost your elemental attacks, or upgrade your spells, or fuel subclass stuff.


I would still add spell schools as specialty skills that do magic stuff, with the simple class only getting 2 early on, and gaining only 2 more over levels, while the wizard starts with 4 and gets all of them.

The Wizard i would probably keep using spell slots because they are so much more weird and esoteric feeling than points. The two classes would feel very different when building and in play, and both would be really fun I think.

 

[M_Natas]

Huh. I went with Warlock, but, so many folks went with Sorcerer. How is a Sorcerer a "simple" caster? Good grief, even a fairly low level sorc has a dozen options in any given round.

A simple caster has 3 spells. One for offense, one for defense and one for utility. The effects can be modified as needed based on level but, you never, ever have more than three choices at any given time.

To me, that's what a simple character looks like.

It was asked who should be the simple caster, not who is.
And thematically Sorcerer (and also Warlock) fit a simple casting class. Because both didn't earn their magic in the fiction, they either just have it, because of daddy's genetics or it was given to them by their daddy patron.

So it is quite super simple, to envision a simple sorcerer:

Oh, your mommy was a dragon, because of that you can breath fire offensively, have hard skin defensively and have telekinesis. All three scale with level. The end.

Or, as a kid you fell into a Mana portion, now you can blast raw magic with your hands (offensive), make mana shields (defense) and have telekinesis. All 3 scale with level. The end.

Oh, you made pact with the devil?
Here is a magic missle wand, a amulet of shield and a mage hand ring as your pact given things. All three scale with level. The end.

 

[Remathilis]

If you really want "simpler" casters, remove the bonus spell lists from all subclasses. Then make almost every classes spell prep change only on level up rather than per day. (Wizard is the sole exception). Once you have everyone only having 2-3 spells per spell level rather than 5+, the amount of analysis paralysis will drop.

 

[Remathilis]

They have.

B/X line has 7 player options. I would gove thst a 2/10 maybe 3/10. Clones with ascending AC are about the simplist D&D has gone.

Good ol ENworld can't even comprehend people wanting simpler lol (my personal tastes are around a 6 by D&D standards).

I don't see them going to B/X levels or making a simple caster as ENworld defines it. Wouldn't be surprised if 6E goes lower complexity.

If given a chance to build 6e, Enworld will inevitably build B/X with ascending AC.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Huh. I went with Warlock, but, so many folks went with Sorcerer. How is a Sorcerer a "simple" caster? Good grief, even a fairly low level sorc has a dozen options in any given round.

A simple caster has 3 spells. One for offense, one for defense and one for utility. The effects can be modified as needed based on level but, you never, ever have more than three choices at any given time.

To me, that's what a simple character looks like.

I think the choice is based on theme, not on previous mechanics.

If the Sorceror is using an inborn talent for magic, it wouldn't be surprising if his power set is a bit simpler, possibly with a strong theme (e.g. a dragon-blood sorceror has draconic themed powers and doesn't, say summon a magnificent mansion, a faihtful watch dog or drains water from your body, but he can probably breath fire or other dragon-related energy and can get draconic wings, might have access to True Seeing or, heck, Visions of Avarice). There is no reason he has to use the spell list of the Wizard, other than that's what 3.x and 5E did.

 

[Aldarc]

If given a chance to build 6e, Enworld will inevitably build B/X with ascending AC.

This is basically OSE, which comes with the option for ascending AC. It's default in Dolmenwood.

 

[Blue]

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.

I maintain that if a new player, who has never played the games, needs to read through a 15+ spell descriptions and understand them, it's not a simple class. At first level, every full caster is looking at 20+ cantrips and 1st level spells to read, many in the 30s or 40s.

As such, I can't see a simple caster existing simply as a subclass. For a caster to be simple, it needs either as extremely curtailed spell list (say, total five to eight spells on the list for a new character, including cantrips, and still a lot more choices then the Champion), that can be swapped out like cleric/druid including for the cantrips so they aren't locked in to any permanent mistakes, or more likely that picking individual spells isn't part of what you do in the class.

 

[ECMO3]

Ranger.

 

[Tigris]

Ranger.

This is not an arcane class. And attacks normally weapon based so its more a martial than a caster.

 

[Artamo]

I maintain that if a new player, who has never played the games, needs to read through a 15+ spell descriptions and understand them, it's not a simple class. At first level, every full caster is looking at 20+ cantrips and 1st level spells to read, many in the 30s or 40s.

As such, I can't see a simple caster existing simply as a subclass. For a caster to be simple, it needs either as extremely curtailed spell list (say, total five to eight spells on the list for a new character, including cantrips, and still a lot more choices then the Champion), that can be swapped out like cleric/druid including for the cantrips so they aren't locked in to any permanent mistakes, or more likely that picking individual spells isn't part of what you do in the class.

I guess I look at simplicity in TTRPGs a bit differently.

I said earlier that I’ve watched my kids tackle video games and card games that can be highly complex with multiple different builds and factors to consider, enough to make me spout the classic parent line: “If you put that much effort into your math homework, you’d have an A right now!” I tease them but it was as true for me when I was their age as it is for them. If I could sit and muddle through the purple prose of a 40-something year-old fan of sword and sorcery fiction and the game he created when I was 10 years old, surely simplicity is not the be-all, end-all. Creating the desire to learn the game is more important, IMO. This is why the renaissance of D&D in other venues and is broader popularity has been so key - be it Stranger Things, or Critical Role, the D&D movie, video games, animes and the like, interest in playing the game has probably never been higher. When people want to play something, they’ll take the time to understand it.

With that said, I don’t think simplicity needs to be present at all levels of the game. Most 1st through 3rd level characters are simple enough for people to understand, and a couple of those choices are simpler still, like the Champion and, IMO, the Warlock. Those are going to allow your most casual player to get into the game and start playing and hopefully have enough fun to want to keep playing.

I don’t think reading through a bunch of options but only having to pick one or two is all that complicated. Could it be improved by including information in the Player’s Handbook such as: “Do you just want to shoot stuff out of your fingertips? Try Eldritch Blast or Ray of Frost. If you want to protect yourself in fights, choose Mage Armor or Shield.” Sure, that would help the truly green player. But even then, there’s resources for those players and I think one of them are other players who can steer them to a couple of good choices based on their interests (I really don’t think there are bad choices at early levels. I’m sure others will take exception with that, but it’s a game - you try things out.) The other options are the numerous YouTube and online articles about what are the best spells, abilities or feats to choose for a given class. Just a few minutes time will steer new players towards good choices that will be just fine for their first few games, if they’re struggling at all. Again, I think over-focusing on simplicity forgets the greater ecosystem that has been built up around D&D specifically to make playing the game easier.

Just my two cents.