Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9597667" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I had had some ideas for a truly simple caster as well. My main concept was to, more or less, have it built around an upgraded-to-full-spell prestidigitation of yesteryear. That is, a core magic &quot;trick&quot; you can do a certain number of times that can be applied in particular directions. Relatively constrained compared to the bag of tricks a Wizard can have, but still quite diverse compared to a Champion Fighter. (I don't expect a &quot;truly simple caster&quot; to be as simple as the simplest possible martial character, to be clear, but it's gotta be much closer than any current caster.)The Warlock comparison I think is important but not quite perfect. Warlock's shtick in 5e is the &quot;build your own class&quot;, to a degree even more pronounced than Bard. So, more or less, I'd probably interpret the &quot;simple caster&quot; (I called it &quot;Mage&quot;) as having Bard-like subclasses--where each subclass sets you up for some pretty specific focus--but with expression more like what a Warlock is like when it's gotten all the invocations for a particular path. So the &quot;Valor Bard&quot;/&quot;Blade Warlock&quot; equivalent would still have that core magical action thing, but would also get a few specific ways to kick butt with weapons too (EA at 6 is traditional, for example). The &quot;Lore Bard&quot;/&quot;Tome Warlock&quot; equivalent would instead get some supportive and ritual-leaning stuff; perhaps Mages don't do rituals, but the Ritualist subclass gets access to a package of ritual-like effects at ritual-like cast times and durations. Etc.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9597667, member: 6790260"] I had had some ideas for a truly simple caster as well. My main concept was to, more or less, have it built around an upgraded-to-full-spell [I]prestidigitation[/I] of yesteryear. That is, a core magic "trick" you can do a certain number of times that can be applied in particular directions. Relatively constrained compared to the bag of tricks a Wizard can have, but still quite diverse compared to a Champion Fighter. (I don't expect a "truly simple caster" to be as simple as the simplest possible martial character, to be clear, but it's gotta be much closer than any current caster.) The Warlock comparison I think is important but not quite perfect. Warlock's shtick in 5e is the "build your own class", to a degree even more pronounced than Bard. So, more or less, I'd probably interpret the "simple caster" (I called it "Mage") as having Bard-like subclasses--where each subclass sets you up for some pretty specific focus--but with expression more like what a Warlock is like when it's gotten all the invocations for a particular path. So the "Valor Bard"/"Blade Warlock" equivalent would still have that core magical action thing, but would also get a few specific ways to kick butt with weapons too (EA at 6 is traditional, for example). The "Lore Bard"/"Tome Warlock" equivalent would instead get some supportive and ritual-leaning stuff; perhaps Mages don't do [I]rituals[/I], but the Ritualist subclass gets access to a package of ritual-like effects at ritual-like cast times and durations. Etc. [/QUOTE]

Verification