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

[Minigiant]

You were the one who introduced definitions lacking face validity, so you have no grounds to complain about anyone else's definitions.

Your definition still says fighters and barbarian arent simple.

Weapon Mastery and Some Swappable In-Subclass choices.

 

[Zardnaar]

Well fightervand rogues are the least complicated according to wotc

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The subclasses all but one increased complexity of the whole. You might have an argument if each had 3 simple subclasses. Or even TWO.

You could maybe make an argument that the 2014 versions of the fighter and barbarian were simple.

But they were also both bad and unbalanced by their level of simplicity. Any subclass that did not increase was even weaker.

The 2024 versions of both classes are not simple. Fighter added more resource management. Barbarians gained additional Action options.

Your definition still says fighters and barbarian arent simple.

Weapon Mastery and Some Swappable In-Subclass choices.

Did you forget that this entire thr3ad is about a hypothetical new edition?

Subclasses do not determine whether the class is simple. The class does. Period. This derail about subclasses on the existing simple classes (and yes, they hoth do have multiple simple subclasses) is not useful on any level.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Subclasses do not determine whether the class is simple. The class does. Period.

disagree that the matter lies entirely with class, subclass can be a notable factor in adjusting complexity up or down.

 

[Minigiant]

Did you forget that this entire thr3ad is about a hypothetical new edition?

Subclasses do not determine whether the class is simple. The class does. Period. This derail about subclasses on the existing simple classes (and yes, they hoth do have multiple simple subclasses) is not useful on any level.

Subclasses come into play when you are using comparison and base assumptions.

Engineers are complexity scale from 1 to 10 where 1 is the most simple you can make this class work and be balanced and 10 is the most complex.

Say that we're attempting to make a simple arcane caster that is between 2 and 5 whose subclasses can increased that complexity by 1-5 points.

IMHO the base 2014 fighter and barbarian aren't the most simple classes 5th edition made, and they would be classified as a 3. The 2024 versions are more complex. And I would say that they are now a 4 and a 5 respectedly.

Then, you add subclasses. The champion and the berserker are the most simple. It's so complexity wise, they might be a one additional point of complexity. Every other subclass in the game for in all 2 classes increases complexity by 2 or more. In some cases, for a spellcaster subclass, you might be increasing complexity by 4 or 5..

My point is that if you use the simplest class plus the simplest class as the basis of what you consider simple, you're still half way up to complexity scale.

Champion fighter is managing accident surges. Second, when uses and indomitable uses. And I forgot the inspiration points that recover every turn when you get to high level.

They didn't combine them all into one resource.

The simplest class subclass combination in 2024 and 2014 starts with 2 additional resources and gets a 3rd. And every single other subclass for that class gives you a 4th.

You can make an arcane class that is as simple as the fighter, but IMHO i wouldn't call that class simple.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

disagree that the matter lies entirely with class, subclass can be a notable factor in adjusting complexity up or down.

If we werent talking about classes purely in rhe context of which should become the simple caster in a hypothetical edition, perhaps.

But even then, a complex class and a simple class with complex subclasses are two different things in any context. So the fighter and barb are simple classes.

 

[Minigiant]

If we werent talking about classes purely in rhe context of which should become the simple caster in a hypothetical edition, perhaps.

But even then, a complex class and a simple class with complex subclasses are two different things in any context. So the fighter and barb are simple classes.

I don't think think its binary simple and complex.

It's a range or spectrum. And IMHO, both of 5e fighter and barbarian are at the bottom of the simple side of possible 6e class.

Or in layman's terms, in 6e you can make fun balanced warrior, roguey, and arcane classes a lot more simpler than the 5e fighter and barbarian.

A simple class with multiple simple subclasses.