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

[Horwath]

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..

when casting a cantrip that deals damage, you can spend one spell slot.
increase damage of the cantrip by 2 dice per spell level of the slot.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Yes. It would.

sorry this is a bit too ambiguous for me to parse which part of my comment it was referring to, did you mean 'yes they'd be a simple caster' or 'yes they're a class that'd have simple casting' like, eldritch knight has simple casting but i wouldn't define them as a simple caster because they don't cast as their primary gameplay loop.

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.

unless you're simply slapping the bard name on what i would consider a functionally entirely new class i guess i just consider bard too much of a jack of all trades to be the simple caster because the class would be cluttered with other mechanics like expertise and weapon/armour proficiencies that detract from the goal of being 'the simple caster'

 

[Minigiant]

when casting a cantrip that deals damage, you can spend one spell slot.
increase damage of the cantrip by 2 dice per spell level of the slot.

The question is ?

Must the simple arcane caster cast spills from spell slots?


For me, simple class means three possibilities

1) this is a simple class for a new person to learn the basics of the game..

2), this is a simple class for a person to pilot.

3) this is a simple class to run a specific subsystem of the game.

1 and 2 could be the same class, but they currently do not exist in the current class. Options officially for a magic user of the arcane nor divine variety.

3 is the Sorcerer or warlock class depending on how you work designed,

Mage hand press has a warmage class that functions as 2.

 

[Charlaquin]

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

This is just the thing I said but worded differently.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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

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.

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

I strongly disagree with the idea of the Wizard, Artificer, Bard, and to a lesser degree Ranger or Druid, being simple.

Like, a simple Wizard literally is not a wizard, IMO. That is a Sorcerer or something. Wizard is the nerd spellcaster that learns complex formulas to create powerful magical effects. That is antithetical to simple class design.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

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

Don't thank me! People grammar policing others always makes me eye roll. I wasn't going to say anything... but I wasn't completely sure if you actually meant 'beck and call' or not. So that was part grammar policing, part 'I gotsta know...'.

 

[Zardnaar]

I voted new arcane class.

Warlocks, Sorcerers etc have to much momentum now imho. Cant really stupid them down ship has sailed.

Current warlocks actually fairly complicated now.

Making any class simple would piss off to many people.

Unless there was a big push to simplify the game (from the players not corporate).

 

[Charlaquin]

I strongly disagree with the idea of the Wizard, Artificer, Bard, and to a lesser degree Ranger or Druid, being simple.

Like, a simple Wizard literally is not a wizard, IMO. That is a Sorcerer or something. Wizard is the nerd spellcaster that learns complex formulas to create powerful magical effects. That is antithetical to simple class design.

Just because the character is learning complex formulae doesn’t mean the player needs to be doing so. And there should still be complex options for those who want them. Not just for wizards but for all classes. How much complex rules minutia you want to deal with and what fantasy archetype you want your character to embody should be independent choices.

 

[Scott Christian]

sorry this is a bit too ambiguous for me to parse which part of my comment it was referring to, did you mean 'yes they'd be a simple caster' or 'yes they're a class that'd have simple casting' like, eldritch knight has simple casting but i wouldn't define them as a simple caster because they don't cast as their primary gameplay loop.

My apologies. I meant the casting part of their class would be simple.

unless you're simply slapping the bard name on what i would consider a functionally entirely new class i guess i just consider bard too much of a jack of all trades to be the simple caster because the class would be cluttered with other mechanics like expertise and weapon/armour proficiencies that detract from the goal of being 'the simple caster'

I think the original bard was very much like a describe - a jack-of-all-trades. I like the idea of some of the more complex classes, like the druid or bard, being the simplest on an arcane level. Almost as if the other things they are learning as they level take president, therefore, the deep dive into the arcane is limited.

 

[Tigris]

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 question is understandable let me explain. The reason for why this should be the case comes from the combination of 2 (and a half) design goals:

1. D&D does want to fulfill distinct class fantasies with a limited set of classes, since niche protection is important aka different classes should be different from each other in mechanics and flavour. In a game like League of Legends you can just create a new character bob, which does similar things like another character but is easier/or harder to play. In D&D introducing a hard to play warrior on top of the existing (easy to play) fighter will feel bad since they still kind of fill the same niche/ class fantasy. (Especislly since the fighter is vague already). So D&D is more sinilsr to magic the gathering with its different but still broad colours.

2. As a game you normally do not want to limit your own design space for the future. So if you make a class like the 5e wizard, where the base class already has a lot of power and complexity, you limit your possibilities for subclasses a lot, because there is not a lot of space. And combined with the class fantasy aspect mentioned in point 1, this also means that if you make a complex base class (or a tooo simple base class with a huge power budget) you no longer have the space/possibility to make a simple character (or a more complex) with the same class/power fantasy.

2.5 inclusion. You dont want to exclude people (children, old people who cant remember long texts good enough, people who might have some problems concentrating on overly long texts etc.) From playing certain kind of class fantasies. There is a reason its called "You are a wizard Harry" and not "Sorry only people who love reading long texts and learn them by heart like Hermione can be Wizards, Harry".

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..

Why would we assume that something like "spell slots" are even a thing?

13th age does not have spell slots in its 2nd edition and is made by 2 former D&D lead designers.

But of course there is still some form of ressources and the question still stays if a simple class needs to have ressources.


I would say not necessarily, but having classes with no ressources and classes with ressources in the same game does make a fixed adventuring day necessarily.

So one could also do it like 13th age which has "arcs".

So in a 6E this could look something like: Per arc you have 2 short rests. Between 2 short rests you have 1 full fight or 2 half fight. (Making an adventueing day have like 3 full fights or up to 6 small ones).

This allows to make sure classes with no ressources like potential a simple caster are balanced with classes with ressources like potential a full complexity wizard.