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

[Tigris]

I maintain that if 4e was published with Essential's out the gate, it would have sold better. At least adding those options to the PHB alongside the traditional would have eased some pain points.

5e did launch with simple classes and was by far the worst D&D launch year of any Wotc Edition, so no not likely.

I know people who did not understand 4e like to make fun of how it "failed". But forget to mention that the 4e sales goal was 50 million increasing to 100 million (of which it failed the 2nd part)


While the 5e sales goal was "sell more than in the year before, where we did not launch any new D&D product". So yes 5e succeeded in doing that with its lousy 29.4 million in the first year and second year. But was still the worst launch of a wotc D&D edition. (Unless you count essentials the "relaunch" of 4e with the simple classes which people HATED. Which was a disaster.)

Only after critical role and stranger things sales went up.

So if people talk about "4e was dead after 2 years" then 5e was at least as dead at that point, only difference was thst no one started to panic.


I know in the past we did not have the data and had to believe the WotC marketing, but now we have. So we should stop spreading misinformation.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

I actually like the idea of the bard as simple. A storyteller with roguish capabilities, that has a few spells at the beacon call.

At their 'beck and call'... not 'beacon call', assuming you meant 'quickly available'.

 

[Artamo]

A child I know also plays a warlock and does enjoy it, but he cant do all the choices himself because that class for sure is not simple enough. (Picking from the many spells, picking from the many evocations etc.)

I found the champion not that good, like even beginners/children did not like it, also its mathematically just not that strong, but sure the complexity level for the first play is for sure not a bad starting point.


I do agree with having such subclasses is a good idea, but most classes (spellcasters) are just even without subclass too complex the way they are in 5e. I would really like to see this changed in 6e.

I’ve found with each of my kids that I had to help them through their initial choices regardless of the class. I think the simplicity comes into play when they’re at the table, and then it just comes down to the number of choices and having ones that are just obviously good choices to make versus having to weigh things situationally. So with that said, warlock as a caster may have more choices up front with invocations and some spell choices but once set, it seems easier overall.

You could make the argument with a little handholding, any class is going to be easy once the choices are made. Generally, I tend to think the simplicity problem is a bit overstated. Presentation of building and leveling a character is probably more important than the complexity of the actual choices themselves. I’ve seen children tackle video games of greater complexity based solely upon their desire to play the game and beat it. I think D&D doesn’t need to be so simple as a means to draw in players - I think WotC needs to keep working on making it cool to play.

 

[Corinnguard]

Doesn't playing any class several times over lead to it becoming simpler for the one playing it?

 

[dave2008]

If it was up to me, the arcane casters would always be complex and the spiritual casters would be simple. So, if you want to play a simple caster you play a spiritualist.

To clarify, arcane and spiritual are not different types of magic, just different ways for mortals to access magic. Spiritualist would be like:

• Cleric - magic from gods
• Druid - magic from spirits
• Warlock - magic from a patron

 

[CreamCloud0]

Sorcerer needs a niche,

i disagree, it doesn't need a niche, it already has a theme which is enough, if not more important, classes exist to fulfil narrative fantasies.

and being the "innate" caster gives it a reason to be the simple design.

i don't follow how that logic holds, wizard should be the simple caster because they've standardized their use of magic, cleric should be the simple caster because their deity is guiding their use of magic, druid should be the simple caster because primal magic is the most fundamental kind of casting, you can make that kind of justification for all the casters.

 

[Minigiant]

This is why a new simple class is best.

On your turn

1. Cast Blade Ward
2. Cast Fire Bolt
3. Cast Light
4. Cast Guidance
5. Cast Mage Hand
6. Cast Message
7. Cast Prestidigitation
8. Cast Ray of Frost
9. Cast Toll the Dead
10. Cast True Strike

You start with 1-5 @ level 1 and have 1-10 @ level 20.

In combat you'd only have 2-5 cantrips to worry about.

 

[Charlaquin]

I’ve never been fond of the idea of whole classes being designated simple. All classes should be designed to be simple at base and scale up in complexity with subclasses or other modular options to add onto them.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Sorcerer makes sense to me, the 4E precedent of Elementalist also works for me as a new class.

Simple to me means that it doesn't have a large amount of spells prepared or spell slots to manage, but the abilities are clearly styled that you sling mag around, not using weapons.

An alternative that could allow both simple and complex approaches in one class could be something like a Summoner. Maybe one type of Summoner can choose from a variety of monsters and might even scour the Monster Manual for suitable monsters, while the other picks a theme for the monsters they summon and they upgrade over the levels, just better numbers or adding some AoE/control/heal features, or the ability to summon them in pairs or groups eventually.


I also wouldn't mind if there was some spell-caster class that is maybe not simple, but "low fantasy". Instead of managing dozens of spell slots and preparing dozens of spells, it only casts very few spells, and its basic combat abilities are much more "mundane", only occasionally throwing in a cantrip or low level spell, and if it wants to do big, gameplay or world-altering magic, it performs those spells as rituals (that aren't restricted to this class, but this class is particularly good at discovering new rituals and performing ritual magic) and/or has to craft magical implements that store the spell for them.

 

[Umbran]

I get it at the time 4e came along a lot of people where old D&D players not understanding modern game design because they never played a modern game in their live and they were angry because they could not adapt to the change.

But today many of these old folk are dead (and until 6e releases even more of them will be) and most people playing 5e know modern games like magic the gathering or Mobas, so they have the ability do understand that different classes can be mechanically different even if they have the same progression.

Mod note:
Before you continue to go on about what people you have never met do or don't understand...

Please allow me to remind you that Rule #1 on these boards is, "Keep it civil." That means, among other things, that you should be respectful of others and their gaming preferences, and that ascribing those preferences to intellectual failure is rude, and kind of insulting.

Understand that, before you continue, please.