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

[tetrasodium]

If we’re trying to find the main source of complexity in 5e casters, it’s probably spell slots in general rather than the specific applications.

A simple (by DnD standards) caster is probably going to need to either not use spell slots in the base class or use a very streamlined version similar to what warlocks do.

I think what you we really want mechanically is closer to a 5e warlock without invocations than a 5e sorcerer, but the sorcerer narrative fits a lot better.

Putting a lot of the class’s power in enhanced cantrips can keep the balance pretty good while leaving room for subclasses to go in many different directions.

I don't think it should have spell slots or cantrips at all. Those need to serve normal casters. The 3.5 warlock and 5e arcane archer are much better models for a "simple" arcane caster. Cantrips instead of class level based multi attack are an especially big nono because they auto scale.

 

[Minigiant]

I agree that wizards have too much ppwer in their mainclass. Thats why I would do wizard as a subclass for a mage like explained here: D&D General - [+] For (hypothetical) 6e: Which arcane caster class should be the "simple" one?



Well a simple caster does not necessary need to use "spell slots" that concept is complex by its own, but even if onr uses spell slots there are things to do to make it simpler here some ways how it can work.

no spell slots just cantrips but stronger ones or ones which get stronger under certain conditions​

Having fixed spells selected (which can be used per encounter or so) instead of having spell slots​

Only 1 level of spell slots (Highest level). Tracking 1 ressource is a lot easier than tracking up to 9​

You could even just call it spell points and casting 1 spell costs 1 point and they scale automatically like PF2 focus spells​

Combined with the above one could also just reduce the number of spell knos A LOT like to 2 or 3.​

​

​

I'd do that off a cantrip only caster base.

Have a subclass that masters a single level 1 or 2 spell and cast it at highest level X times a day via points.

Possibly piggy backing the upgrades on their cantrips.

 

[Minigiant]

I don't think it should have spell slots or cantrips at all. Those need to serve normal casters. The 3.5 warlock and 5e arcane archer are much better models for a "simple" arcane caster. Cantrips instead of class level based multi attack are an especially big nono because they auto scale.

I disagree.

A simple class should also be a teaching aid for lne players learning the games systems and be a way for veterans to run lower mental load PCs.

Cantrips would teach the games spellcasting basics.

Now whether or not they scale is a 6e decision. But they would scale slow enough to not be confusing.

 

[tetrasodium]

I disagree.

A simple class should also be a teaching aid for lne players learning the games systems and be a way for veterans to run lower mental load PCs.

Cantrips would teach the games spellcasting basics.

Now whether or not they scale is a 6e decision. But they would scale slow enough to not be confusing.

There is nothing special about cantrips for teaching new players that can't be covered by a class specific power like the 3.5 warlock had or a weapon based attack. Using cantrips is how we got everyone's most critical sorc bard pally +1 dip Eldritch blast elevated with "simple" buffs far beyond what cantrip supports.

Cantrips should support caster classes and using them as the cornerstone of a "simple," class built around cantrips just turns that class into a must take dip for anyone with a compatible primary attribute in ways that unlocking multi attack after 5 or whatever number of levels in the "simple" clsss

 

[Tigris]

There is nothing special about cantrips for teaching new players that can't be covered by a class specific power like the 3.5 warlock had or a weapon based attack. Using cantrips is how we got everyone's most critical sorc bard pally +1 dip Eldritch blast elevated with "simple" buffs far beyond what cantrip supports.

Cantrips should support caster classes and using them as the cornerstone of a "simple," class built around cantrips just turns that class into a must take dip for anyone with a compatible primary attribute in ways that unlocking multi attack after 5 or whatever number of levels in the "simple" clsss

Who says one does allow stupid level dibs in 6E to start with? Or that the cantrips scale with player level instead of class level? This is purely a 5E problem not an inherent problem.


What is special about cantrips is that they dont use ressources. This removes the "oh should I spend a ressource" part. You can also call the cantrips "at will spells" or whatever if that makes it better.

 

[tetrasodium]

Who says one does allow stupid level dibs in 6E to start with? Or that the cantrips scale with player level instead of class level? This is purely a 5E problem not an inherent problem.


What is special about cantrips is that they dont use ressources. This removes the "oh should I spend a ressource" part. You can also call the cantrips "at will spells" or whatever if that makes it better.

Cantrips give nothing that can't be supplied by something else pegged to class level with better balance baked in at the core.

Weapon based attacks don't use resources. Likewise with 3.5 warlock not using resources

Warlock – Class – D&D Tools

Complete list of all D&D spells, rulebooks, feats, classes and more!

dndtools.net