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

[Umbran]

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.

shrug. All classes shoudl be made the same way? Why? Are all players the same, or something?

I don't see why we should not have some classes be complicated right out of the gate, and some classes just really simple, and some as you describe above. That may not all fit in the same base core rulebook, but that never stopped us before.

 

[Horwath]

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.

That, and maybe class or two that are focused more on daily powers than encounter or at will powers.
or to trade utility power slots for encounter or daily attack powers.

few categories:

1. at will focused
2. encounter focused
3. daily focused
4. mix and match - standard 4E, where the pick of utility shifts your focus.

 

[CreamCloud0]

shrug. All classes shoudl be made the same way? Why? Are all players the same, or something?

I don't see why we should not have some classes be complicated right out of the gate, and some classes just really simple, and some as you describe above. That may not all fit in the same base core rulebook, but that never stopped us before.

because if you design all classes the same to have both simple and complex options then everybody gets to have access to all classes, rather than being split between choosing 'the simple classes' and 'the complex classes' if they don't want to play one or the other.

having access to half the content of 14 classes is IMO preferable to having all the content of 7 classes.

 

[Horwath]

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.

I would advocate opposite design.
it will work better.

 

[Charlaquin]

shrug. All classes shoudl be made the same way?

No. There are many more axies of class diversity than complexity.

Why? Are all players the same, or something?

No, but there are players who strongly prefer simple characters, and those players should not be barred from certain classes. All classes should be able to be simple.

I don't see why we should not have some classes be complicated right out of the gate,

Because that cuts those classes off from players who want or need a simple character.

 

[Charlaquin]

I would advocate opposite design.
it will work better.

…how do use modular options to make a class less complex?

 

[Scott Christian]

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

D'oh. 100% meant "beck and call." Thanks for the edit.

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

Yes. It would. Isn't that the title:

Which arcane caster class should be the "simple" one?​

Or am I missing something. Sorry, but I thought that was what is being asked.

 

[Minigiant]

Here's is a question:

Must the simple arcane caster have spell slots?​

Because to me, if we're talking about a simple class, then we're going by the idea of being as simple as the fighter champion in fifth edition. So a simple arcane, caster and a simple divine caster would be a class that does not have spell slots..

So if you're talking about a simple arcane caster to teach D&D or be a lower mental load, it has to be a new class..

If you're singing an in simple arcane caster to teach the DND casting system, we're talking about the Sorcerer..

 

[Horwath]

…how do use modular options to make a class less complex?

design class with complexity in mind but offer simple mechanical choices from the start.

as in champion fighter vs battlemaster.
active vs passive abilities as choices.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Exactly what it says on the tin. I am, personally, of the opinion that D&D has almost never had an actually simple caster. Note the [+] thread; if you don't believe there should even be simple classes, this isn't the thread for you. I respect your opinion but it would not be fruitful to discuss it here.

If you think more than one should be simple, you can pick up to three options.

As always with my polls, you cannot change your vote after voting, nor see the results until you've voted. If you are unsure what you would vote, ask for clarification first! Poll will close in two months.

The Sorcerer.

I would like to see the sorcerer treat elements like weapons, and use sorcery points to boost their elemental weapon attacks in different ways.

What i mean by weapon is that when the sorcerer focuses on Fire, their basic attacks deal fire damage, have 100ft/200ft range, and creatures and unattended objects hit catch fire.
When you focus on Ice, attacks deal cold damage, 60ft/160ft range, and the target is slowed on a hit.
Lightning is 130ft/300ft, slightly less damage than fire or ice, and can deal attack mod damage to any creature within 5 feet of the target.

something like that. Basically like a fighter with weapon mastery.

Subclasses would provide most of the utility stuff, but you would also maybe pick two schools of magic and each has a skill-style description.

You use sorcery points to upgrade your next use of an element or magic school, like boosting range, making a single target attack into a small aoe, etc.