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

[Yaarel]

okay, but melee casting is still not the typical caster experience so my point stands.

Probably, a "standard caster experience" is a problem. Today there are many fullcaster classes. Hopefully these classes can feel different from each other.

 

[Artamo]

Warlock, however, comes with all that Patron baggage attached; which not everyone wants or needs.

Strip that away and you're on to something here, though it wouldn't be a Warlock any more.

IMO, that’s a roleplaying aspect that I wouldn’t try to burden a new player with unless they really wanted to go there right away. I’m content to let them have fun with their warlock-y powers.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Just because the character is learning complex formulae doesn’t mean the player needs to be doing so.

Yes, it does. Or at least, it means that the mechanics must reflect some degree of that complexity. Otherwise the lore feels like a lie in play.

The idea of having an eldritch blast spammer with lore that you are enacting spells based on complex understanding of spellcraft through long study is just laughable. It would be like saying your greatsword barbarian is an archer.

Besides, a 5e Wizard isn't exactly learning the formulas that make spells work.

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.

They cannot be entirely independent. Only classes whose class fantasy can reasonably be simple should have simple class mechanics. If you want a simple arcane spellcaster, there must be at least two arcane spellcasters.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yes, it does. Or at least, it means that the mechanics must reflect some degree of that complexity. Otherwise the lore feels like a lie in play.

The idea of having an eldritch blast spammer with lore that you are enacting spells based on complex understanding of spellcraft through long study is just laughable. It would be like saying your greatsword barbarian is an archer.

Besides, a 5e Wizard isn't exactly learning the formulas that make spells work.

They cannot be entirely independent. Only classes whose class fantasy can reasonably be simple should have simple class mechanics. If you want a simple arcane spellcaster, there must be at least two arcane spellcasters.

I disagree. The wizard already doesn’t feel like memorizing complex formula. The bard doesn’t feel like playing music. The monk doesn’t feel like doing Kung Fu. Etc.