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

[DragonLancer]

Sorcerer. It's the easiest spellcaster to play anyway.

 

[Horwath]

I was speaking about the simplest 4e classes, which have a different progression from the normal ones which you mention.

ah those...

yeah, 4E was dead and buried while those were published.
maybe if those were printed in PHB1.... but still, they are even more boring than base classes

So before talking about 4e do your homework. Both the simplest caster and the simplest martial do not have daily abilities, and do not replace old abilities with new ones and they also have additional simple class features at different than normal levels.

Also small kids also hate to brush their teeth does not mean its bad.


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.

look, we gave honest chance to 4E, played several campaigns in 08-09, but simple went back to 3.5e/PF1 hybrid.

until 5E came out.

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.

Now, I'm not saying that 4E didn't have good things in it;

at-will scaling cantrips, even if scaling was too slow

Healing surges, much better than HD healing in 5E

Encounter powers, 5min is a short rest, 1hr is not!

Removal of medium armor, but then went overboard with removing specific max dex from every armor. So again you end up with only 2 armors. heaviest light armor and heaviest heavy armor.

I would say removal of darkvision on most races but that just inflated numbers of Drows and Duergars or Haunting shade multiclass feats. So maybe that is a negative.

 

[Remathilis]

One simple sub per class (each class). A blaster wizard, healer cleric, buffer bard, elementalist druid, sniper warlock, etc. But to work, subclasses in general need to do more heavy lifting than 3-4 themed class features. Preferably, they should control 5+ class abilities and a significant portion of the spell list. Then you can make classes simple or complex based on the sub.

 

[Artamo]

I think just as there is a Champion subclass for the fighter that really gets a new player going quickly with a decently powerful ability yet passive ability, there should be a similar subclass for the arcane casters that is just the dead simple PC choice for a new player. I think the closest class out of the box that approaches this is an Eldritch Blast spamming warlock. My daughter played D&D for the first time about a month ago, and I think she appreciated the blaster aspect of the warlock combined with having a couple of spells for special occasions. Nothing felt overwhelming to her and she was decently powerful.

 

[Corinnguard]

One simple sub per class (each class). A blaster wizard, healer cleric, buffer bard, elementalist druid, sniper warlock, etc. But to work, subclasses in general need to do more heavy lifting than 3-4 themed class features. Preferably, they should control 5+ class abilities and a significant portion of the spell list. Then you can make classes simple or complex based on the sub.

The Midgard setting by Kobold Press had a Druid archetype (PF1) called the Elemental Exarch. These Druids placed more focus on the four elements than on nature as a whole. They had an elemental companion that grew more powerful as your druid leveled up and who could briefly merge with your druid (thus granting them some benefits).

 

[Tigris]

I think just as there is a Champion subclass for the fighter that really gets a new player going quickly with a decently powerful ability yet passive ability, there should be a similar subclass for the arcane casters that is just the dead simple PC choice for a new player. I think the closest class out of the box that approaches this is an Eldritch Blast spamming warlock. My daughter played D&D for the first time about a month ago, and I think she appreciated the blaster aspect of the warlock combined with having a couple of spells for special occasions. Nothing felt overwhelming to her and she was decently powerful.

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.

 

[Remathilis]

yeah, 4E was dead and buried while those were published.
maybe if those were printed in PHB1.... but still, they are even more boring than base classes

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.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

Sorcerer needs a niche, and being the "innate" caster gives it a reason to be the simple design.

this is basically why i picked sorcerer, too. i didn't realize you could vote multiple times until i already did, so i'll say here that i'd also be fine with a new class to be made the simple one, like an elementalist or something.

honestly i still don't even think artificers should be casters.

 

[Scott Christian]

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

 

[CreamCloud0]

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

but would that actually make them a 'simple caster' or just a regularly complex class with simple casting capabilities?