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 leaning 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.