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.

 

[Minigiant]

Still to me the simple arcane caster is a new class. It is a cantrip master.

I see the Harry Potter caster.

Basic at will Magics.
Subclasses for Specializations to get access to advanced effects.

 

[Peter BOSCO'S]

If Fighter can have Champion and Battlemaster than all the other classes can have easier and less easy subclasses too. I would like to see an easy (or at least relatively easy) subclass for every class. For Wizard I would probably want that to be (some version of) a WarMage, for Sorcerer I would want it to be (some version of) a Draconic Sorcerer and for Warlock I would want it to be (some version of) a Fiend Pact Warlock. There are always players who want an easier to play subclass, and they don't all want to be fighters.

Also, these should be the only subclasses in the free version of the rules.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

The Wizard can learn spells in play using paper and ink, casts from a book, does ritual magic better than anyone else, and is literally entirely about spellcraft.
That is what I am talking about. Taking that away to make them as simple as a baseline fighter will fundementally change the feel of the class into something other than a wizard as surely as the Monk would stop feeling like a Monk if they just use weapons the same as anyone else and have nothing involving enhancing their own body.

And yeah, the 5e Bard is garbage in terms of actually feeling anything like a Bard. That isn't an argument for anything at all except changing how the Bard works so it feels like a Bard.

And I would argue that the Monk does feel like doing martial arts, in the way that I am talking about here. It feels like it is all about discipline, wholeness of body and mind, turning oneself into the weapon, and even just the action economy of the monk lends itself to feeling like a mystic martial artist character while playing one.

Just like the Wizard and Sorcerer feel very different in play even though on paper they don't seem like it, because the Sorcerer has less versatility, can't learn spells in play, has only basic ritual casting, and instead can take a single spell and do different things with any given spell that a Wizard cannot because the Wizard is bound by the formula of the spell.

Meanwhile the much maligned Ranger in 2014 felt like a person who wanders but is not lost, who roams the wilds in order to protect the border spaces between wilderness and civilization, who hunts their enemies with expert knowledge and focus, and who is bound to and in tune with the land to a degree that allows them to use the magic of the world to attain their goals and take down their enemies. It just sadly wasn't powerful and had some gameplay frustrations that really grate on people. The 2024 version is more effective, sure, but it feels much less like the above. (which is objectively the identity of the ranger. THe only reason people see the class as lacking identity is that wotc keeps screwing up the mechanical execution of the class and keep making it either powerful but not the above or do the above but not powerful enough)


Aaaanyway. Simplicity fits the Sorcerer and maybe the Warlock. It doesn't suit the Wizard. So why force the Wizard to do something it conceptually fights against being?

 

[Charlaquin]

The Wizard can learn spells in play using paper and ink, casts from a book, does ritual magic better than anyone else, and is literally entirely about spellcraft.
That is what I am talking about. Taking that away to make them as simple as a baseline fighter will fundementally change the feel of the class into something other than a wizard

Ok. We clearly have different ideas of what “simple” means.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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

That may be, but complexity (which I use only because it's the word most people use; I personally prefer "mechanical engagement") is one of the single most important axes of differentiation, and--as we saw with 4e--putting everyone on exactly the same resource schedule makes people mad and makes people think they're "all samey" even if they aren't.

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.

Then all classes have to be trapped in simplicity.

That's the cost of doing that. Making it so every class is simple leaves insufficient room for adding worthwhile complexity.

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

And that cuts off people who want classes that are inherently complex--as I would prefer to say it, classes that require high mechanical engagement--because you cannot serve two masters. You cannot have a class that really actually makes the complexity sing, that really makes the mechanical engagement worth doing, when it's a mere bolt-on. I wish that weren't true, but I've seen the results time and time and time again. Trying to bolt-on complexity after the fact is either beyond the limits of designers in general to produce, or every professional designer I've ever followed has been unable to achieve it, despite it being somehow easy to do. The latter seems, to me, rather unlikely, given my experiences. Perhaps your experience differs, but if so you're gonna have to show at least one example where it did, in fact, achieve that result--because I've seen way too many examples that did not.

IMO, this is one of the limitations you simply have to accept when you elect to design a class-based game. Some classes simply will not offer everything that every player wants out of them. They can offer everything that some players want, or some particular thing for every player, but not everything for every player all of the time.

 

[Charlaquin]

That may be, but complexity (which I use only because it's the word most people use; I personally prefer "mechanical engagement") is one of the single most important axes of differentiation, and--as we saw with 4e--putting everyone on exactly the same resource schedule makes people mad and makes people think they're "all samey" even if they aren't.


Then all classes have to be trapped in simplicity.

That's the cost of doing that. Making it so every class is simple leaves insufficient room for adding worthwhile complexity.


And that cuts off people who want classes that are inherently complex--as I would prefer to say it, classes that require high mechanical engagement--because you cannot serve two masters. You cannot have a class that really actually makes the complexity sing, that really makes the mechanical engagement worth doing, when it's a mere bolt-on. I wish that weren't true, but I've seen the results time and time and time again. Trying to bolt-on complexity after the fact is either beyond the limits of designers in general to produce, or every professional designer I've ever followed has been unable to achieve it, despite it being somehow easy to do. The latter seems, to me, rather unlikely, given my experiences. Perhaps your experience differs, but if so you're gonna have to show at least one example where it did, in fact, achieve that result--because I've seen way too many examples that did not.

IMO, this is one of the limitations you simply have to accept when you elect to design a class-based game. Some classes simply will not offer everything that every player wants out of them. They can offer everything that some players want, or some particular thing for every player, but not everything for every player all of the time.

I simply don’t agree that this isn’t an achievable design goal, but there isn’t really anywhere else for that line of discussion to go, so… enjoy the thread, I guess.