Essentials missing simple casters

[Saeviomagy]

Coincidentally they're all ethnomusicologist grad students, speak 3 or 4 languages, and are amazing musicians.

Looks like some supporting evidence for Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences to me.

Some people are good at some things and bad at others. 4e is a pretty logically centred RPG at it's core. Perhaps you should serve as a translator? Take what they say they want to do and turn it into the rules instead of trying to get them to speak rulesian? At a guess, that would have to extend to building their characters too (ie - if they want to be a master of the 4 elements, choose an attack power from each element and so forth).

 

[fba827]

Thanks UHF. Maybe the issue is that a group of our players don't know or care about the rules beyond the most basic elements of their characters. Coincidentally they're all ethnomusicologist grad students, speak 3 or 4 languages, and are amazing musicians. They're all around bright women and a blast to game with. But they often forget the difference between burst and blast, need to be reminded about ongoing conditions and when to make saving throws, aren't sure how many actions of which type they've taken and definitely don't understand the down-trading of action types, sometimes forget they've already used an encounter/daily power, mis-read the battle grid, consistently need to be reminded about circumstantial modifiers even ones their PC is providing, and the list goes on. It doesn't matter how many times the rules are explained or that we've been playing 4e for a year. The 3 of them spend much more time on their turns than the other 4 players and most of that time is choosing a power. Thing is they like magic - they're playing a sorcerer, a druid, and a runepriest (admitedly a complex class). I was hoping Essentials would provide easier more intuitive caster classes for them, but I realize that was never the aim of the Essentials line. I think part of the disconnect is the interaction between rules and narrative...how magic works in the game doesn't reflect magic as they understand it from fantasy literature or movies. Honestly we're trying every trick under the sun to make it easier for them, but I'm at a loss. The only thing I can think of now are easier classes... that don't exist.

Not that all the casting classes are complex, I, too, wish there was an even simpler casting class for just that option when the mood strikes. However, I didn't actually expect it in the essentials classes.

I realize what i'm about to say is total house ruling, so I will just mention the concept in brief rather than go in to details. But have you considered taking a class that you consider simple and then reflavoring? Example: if you think the bow ranger or slayer fighter (with a bow) is simple, then take that and pretend all the arrows are actually blasts of fire and that everything is arcane. you can still read powers as they are written, just imagine it to be fire damage for anything that would be arrow fire (or lightning or cold etc). true, it would result in odd primary and secondary ability scores, so it's not a perfect solution. but it might be something to consider.

 

[UHF]

You could try reskinning a character to suit. i.e. somehow mix say a Ranger\Archer and a Slayer to come up with a suitable build for a zappy Warlock. I wouldn't want to do that for all the players, but you could do it. Be sure to avoid daily powers.

Come to think of it, there is one adult in my games who's constantly over whelmed by all the powers and so on. He'd probably prefer a Slayer.

Have you considered a role playing game that isn't so miniature\micro-effect dependent? I think of 4e as an action film, and from what you're saying, a chick flick might work better.

Now my LGS has an amazing selection of RPGs, and the owner once told me that it was women who were coming in the store and buying the White Wolf Vampire stuff. (Something about chicks, and a bite on the neck.) I have also heard that Role Playing is better in White Wolf RPGs. (I'm not sure how to interpret that myself.)

To be clear, I'm a huge 4e fan, but its a pain in a lot of respects. Savage Worlds does come to mind as an easier setting to run.


So... it is with some considerable humour that I will reveal that most of the kids I play with (and me) are considered disabled. We all suffer from ADD, and some are even medicated (not me). A few are considered gifted... my daughter among them. I myself have a patent for a mathematical algorithm I developed.

And... I like action movies.

 

[Quickleaf]

Haha, the burden of genius huh? Yeah I agree there are multiple intelligences at work here. Though I'm game to try a different system, I'm not the DM and our group is pretty attached to 3e or 4e D&D... and 4e certainly is easier on our virgin DM. Re-skinning was something I mentioned but didn't get any interest. I just was thinking how the runepriest, for example, could be "essentialized" by treating rune states like fighter stances.

 

[UHF]

Castles and Crusades by Gary Gygax. Its AD&D and way slicker. You need to deal with reading and understanding spells, but the rest of the system is something you'll readily know and love.

I've managed to convert an AD&D DM to C&C. He's a lot happier because its easy to run.

Hey... you're in Honolulu. My parents have a Beach Front condo in the Nauru Towers. I miss the sun.

 

[Campbell]

Speaking as a fan of the New World of Darkness, Pointing someone to a Whitewolf RPG if they want rules that are simpler than 4e is probably not the best idea, especially where spell casting is concerned. White Wolf games are uniformly rules heavy with an emphasis on simulation. They just assume that you ignore the rules when they get in the way )always a good idea.)

One option would be to look at a simple narrative game like Dresden Files, Spirit of the Century, or Primetime Adventures. Playing a spell caster in such a game is as simple as playing any other character. (Extremely simple).

Additional Note: The Essentials Wizard/Mage is too complicated with spell memorization rules in place. Frankly, I'm of the mind that the memorization stuff is a little too advanced of a concept for a core rulebook that's supposed to introduce people into the game. The Warpriest is better than the Cleric though because it avoids muddling the water with the choice of implement and weapon powers, is easy to build a character around, and doesn't have ability score schizophrenia. The lack of Divine Power healing cheese is also a plus. Would like some more variety in power selection though.

 

[MrGrenadine]

I'm not a nuts and bolts rules guy, and no math wiz, and this is just off the top of my head, so I'm sure I'm missing some obvious balance issues, etc, here, but couldn't a simple 4e caster look something like this:


The Blaster
Blasters can cast cantrips at will, and can cast a number of attack spells per encounter equal to Int mod + level before having to take a rest. After a short rest, you regain only 1/2 your number of available attacks until a long rest is taken. After a long rest, the Blaster regains his or her max number of attack spells.

Level 1: Pick any two energy types. Every round, you can cast a bolt of energy that does 1d8 (one energy type) dmg to one enemy.

Level 2: You can fire two energy bolts in the same round.

Level 3: You can fire 2 bolts/ rnd OR cast one area attack--burst or close blast 2--that does (one energy type) damage to all creatures in the burst or blast.

Level 4: Add a third energy type OR increase current energy type damage by +1.

Level 5: Pick One: push, slow, or daze. One of your attacks per encounter also pushes or adds that condition to the target.

Level 6: You can fire three energy bolts per round.

Level 7: Increase area attack to burst or close blast 3.

Level 8: Add a fourth energy type OR increase current energy type damage by +2.

Level 9: Two of your attacks per round can push, slow, or daze your target.

Level 10: You can fire four energy bolts per round.

Level 11: Increase area attack to burst or close blast 4, and add a second condition to attach to your attacks.

etc.

Each level, just add something: a plus to damage, or another damage type, or a new condition, or an additional damage die, or make the conditions stronger, add slide or pull, etc.


And maybe there could be an Illusionist variant, an Enchanter variant, a caster that specializes in walls and zones, etc.

I don't know--for me its a fun mental exercise, but there must be a talented designer out there that could make it work.

 

[UHF]

Check out Iron Heroes spell casting.

Iron Heroes was written by Mearls for 3.5, and is considered the predecessor for 4e. The game system itself is recalibrated like 4e. Everything is tougher. Its also quite crunch heavy.

But spell casting was vastly simplified in the form of the Arcanist. You spend points, to cast spells, and do things, and its relatively simple to understand. For an Invoker, More points = more damage. And the limit on points spent is on a table somewhere.

You could drop this into 3.5 Or with a little hand waving, 4e. Your biggest problem will be the player wondering how many power points to put into each casting.

What I would do for 4e is offer a player a basic Wizard with the usual ghost sound at wills, and no combat powers. Give them one school from the Iron Heroes spell casting, and let them gain Utility powers as a Wizard. I think that would do it. Initially, I don't think they can even burst or blast.

 

[WalterKovacs]

It depends in part on what the players find complex/complicated.

It doesn't seem like the problem for the OP was in character creation, but during play. A fighter [or thief], during play are simpler. You don't have daily attack powers to worry about, and you only have a single (multi use) encounter power to use, and for the most part it's not extremely complex of deciding when to use it since they are free actions which don't require you "risk" that they don't work.

A mage, on the other hand, requires you to do some character building every "morning" in determining your spells for that day. During the fight, you have lots of options and need to decide which to use (and what it does, etc). Now, with the warpriest and mage they have at least reduced the odds of "wasting" an encounter power by giving effect or miss effects to most of the powers in the book so missing isn't a waste of a limited resource. Still though, having your options limited makes decisions in play easier.

The 3.5 warlock seems like a possible example of what a 4e spellcaster would look like if built like the thief/slayer/knight.

You have the at-will "basic attack" with your eldritch blast.

You have stances (well, invocations) that modify it, either changing the size of the attack (two targets, cone, part of a melee, etc) or the energy of the attack (fire, cold, acid, with associated secondary effects), all of which were at-will. Then you had the other invocations that would mimick spell effects, often buffs (i.e. utility powers).

I'm not sure if that is what the hexblade will be (the name does seem to suggest otherwise) but it could be a caster that is built in the "mold" of the essential martial classes.

Also, one "simplicity" that was available to 3.5 casters isn't available to 4e characters (except for the essential martials, and psionics) is the ability to "spam". A sorceror, for example, could use up all his level X spell slots casting the same spell over and over. 4e doesn't work the same way because of it's set up (you only have one 1st level daily "spell slot" regardless of level) but he inability to pick the same spell again in your 5th and 9th level spell slots, etc means that choosing to use certain powers also means not being able to use it again for the rest of the encounter and/or day which is not just a tactical option, but a long term strategic one (well, at least with dailies). If you knew that, even if you used this, you'd still have 2 more "copies" for later, it's easier to just concentrate on "is this a good time to use this" instead of "is this the best time to use this, or will there be a better time later".

 

[Plane Sailing]

Check out Iron Heroes spell casting.

Iron Heroes was written by Mearls for 3.5, and is considered the predecessor for 4e. The game system itself is recalibrated like 4e. Everything is tougher. Its also quite crunch heavy.

But spell casting was vastly simplified in the form of the Arcanist. You spend points, to cast spells, and do things, and its relatively simple to understand. For an Invoker, More points = more damage. And the limit on points spent is on a table somewhere.

You could drop this into 3.5 Or with a little hand waving, 4e. Your biggest problem will be the player wondering how many power points to put into each casting.

Mind you, I remember the arcanist being universally panned at the time, as an unbalanced afterthought, so I'm not sure that it would be too good a model to follow!

Cheers