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

[Minigiant]

I don't neccessarily agree that a simple caster should act as sort of training wheels for the "real" spellcaster.

It should be its own class that does what it needs to do to be a viable class among all the other others and uses magic, filling the niche of wizard/warlock/sorceror/witch/occultist in theme, but being much easier to build and run in practice.

I'm not saying this simple arcane caster should be bad, but I'm saying if the point of it is being simple. Then, it should be simple. And if the point of it, being a caster, then it should be a caster..

What's the point of making a simple arcane caster that is not simple, not arcane, and not a Caster?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I'm not saying this simple arcane caster should be bad, but I'm saying if the point of it is being simple. Then, it should be simple. And if the point of it, being a caster, then it should be a caster..

What's the point of making a simple arcane caster that is not simple, not arcane, and not a Caster?

There are many different ways for a spellcaster to work. The pseudo-Vancian magic model of the 5E flavor is just one way.
Mages don't need to have something like cantrips. Shadowrun has spellcasters, and they work completely different from D&D. (I wouldn't say they are not complex, though!)

The point is for someone that wants to play Gandalf, Merlin, Mustrum Ridcully, Constantine, Dumbledor or Harry Potter or whatever is a more modern interpretation of a Mage character. They can be quite different (and sometimes quite different from a D&D spellcaster, Fireballs are not that common in traditional folklore, but D&D wargame roots have made it a trope for more current takes on mages), but there is a theme (a broad one) among them that appeals to people, but they don't neccessarily want to handle a complex character to get that theme.

 

[Tigris]

There are many different ways for a spellcaster to work. The pseudo-Vancian magic model of the 5E flavor is just one way.
Mages don't need to have something like cantrips. Shadowrun has spellcasters, and they work completely different from D&D. (I wouldn't say they are not complex, though!)

The point is for someone that wants to play Gandalf, Merlin, Mustrum Ridcully, Constantine, Dumbledor or Harry Potter or whatever is a more modern interpretation of a Mage character. They can be quite different (and sometimes quite different from a D&D spellcaster, Fireballs are not that common in traditional folklore, but D&D wargame roots have made it a trope for more current takes on mages), but there is a theme (a broad one) among them that appeals to people, but they don't neccessarily want to handle a complex character to get that theme.

Its about mechanics not names.

Cantrips = ressourceless casting. = At will powers

Spell slots = needs daily ressources to casting. = Daily powers

Short rest casting = can be used most combats = encounter powers

There is not that much more. Sure there can be punishment for flavour, and you can make ressources more complex by having chances that something does not need a ressource.

Or having the chance of spell failing be part of the ressource. Or having "spell slots" need specific ingredients to be used.


Harry Potter is clearly a cantrip only caster.