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

[Charlaquin]

Yeah build simplicity is, I think, absolutely required to call a class simple.

Even my own game, Crossroads, I would never call the characters simple just because they are simple to play in a session. They are complex, and the game is simple.

Then by your definitions I guess what I’m arguing for is a simple game with complex classes.

Yeah the Warlock is far from simple. I don't even agree that the simplest playstyle of warlock is the path of least resistence. Focusing on Eldritch Blast isn't obvious. I have run for at least a hundred Warlocks, many run by casual players, and vanishingly few did what you are saying is obvious and the path of least resistance, even the ones that wanted simple gameplay. It is only obvious to people with system mastery.

Really? I definitely disagree that even the simplistic EB is as simple as it would be if it were instead statted out as a "ranged spell weapon". Which is IMO how it should work, partly because then the pact of the blade can just get to use it as a melee spell weapon. And if you bind a weapon, you can use the properties of the Eldritch Blast weapon or the weapon you bonded, which gives you a fairly simple but meaningful layer of depth in play. It would also allow the warlock to have total exclusivity of Eldritch Blast which is a good thing IMO. But this is a tangent.

Again, we are just disagreeing about what it means for a class to be simple. I think all classes should be able to be built in a way that is easy to play. If it takes some system mastery to understand how to build that way

In a game that is going to just have one arcane class, I guess. Not in a version of dnd. In a dnd, this is a different kind of class from the wizard.

And the last thing we need is for all spellcasters to be fundementally the same to build. Ignoring build complexity and only worrying about turn by turn action complexity is a mistake, unless you are building a new game rather than the next version of dnd.

The premise is a 6e. Im perfectly comfortable with a hypothetical 6e being built differently than 5e from the ground up. If that makes it a “new game” that’s fine with me.

Yes, there is. Class identity. Some of it could and should be part of multiple classes, just like how most of the fighter is common to warrior types but only the fighter masters all of it, I would have the Wizard master all of the common mage type features, while the suggested class just has one or two.

You can build class identity with individual class features. The baseline game mechanics should be simple and universal, in my opinion.

 

[Zardnaar]

This would also just mirror the unneeded "martials are simple" stereotype. And does not solve the situation of a child wanting to play a spell slinger.

O

Then by your definitions I guess what I’m arguing for is a simple game with complex classes.

Again, we are just disagreeing about what it means for a class to be simple. I think all classes should be able to be built in a way that is easy to play. If it takes some system mastery to understand how to build that way

The premise is a 6e. Im perfectly comfortable with a hypothetical 6e being built differently than 5e from the ground up. If that makes it a “new game” that’s fine with me.

You can build class identity with individual class features. The baseline game mechanics should be simple and universal, in my opinion.

That's kinda key. Warlocks and Sorcerers can be built simply. The knowledge to do so however....

I normally do this with newbies in character creation. Ask them what their concept is and suggest ways to enable it.

Skills, spells or weapons. Pick one to excel in or two and be good at it

 

[Blue]

I chose sorcerer, but it was a toss-up between that and a new class. The deciding point was that with a new class I wouldn't want the sorcerer around anymore as it would have even less of a unique caster niche, so I went sorcerer, but a 6e take that not just preserves the theme of sorcerer but focuses even more on it while updating the mechanics.

I want a simple sorcerer where you don't pick spells. You pick your bloodline (ideally separate from subclass like Warlocks have a pact) and that gives you a bunch of thematic spells known. And spells are designed with this in mind, that an Ice sorcerer has a good range of control, defensive, offensive, and debuff spells (for example), while a metallic dragon blood has a different set of spells that also cover lots of categories, though maybe not exactly the same ones and definitely not in the same ways. Oh, and to keep things working across tiers with just a small spell list, the spells need to scale, either innately (shield's +5 to AC is helpful if your first or fifteenth level) or by being upcast.

This can cover ideas like an elementalist, dragon/fiendish/celestial, and whatever other variety of bloodlines, with the subclass then focused on how they use it, from traditional options to a monk-like who delivers spells with their blows and gets bonuses for self-buffs, to other archetypes with a tight power focus from books, movies, and anime.

There is no base class spell list because there isn't a mechanism for learning spells outside your bloodline, keeping it very simple. Upcasting doesn't come in until you have a couple of levels under your belt so are more familiar with the class.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Then by your definitions I guess what I’m arguing for is a simple game with complex classes.

Again, we are just disagreeing about what it means for a class to be simple. I think all classes should be able to be built in a way that is easy to play. If it takes some system mastery to understand how to build that way

Okay, that makes your position basically, "The game shouldn't have a simple caster", then.

The premise is a 6e. Im perfectly comfortable with a hypothetical 6e being built differently than 5e from the ground up. If that makes it a “new game” that’s fine with me.

Then that isn't a 6e, it's a different game entirely. Which is fine, it just isn't the same thing as what the OP is asking, because it is asking for what "the simple caster" of a 6e should be.

You can build class identity with individual class features. The baseline game mechanics should be simple and universal, in my opinion.

As much as I loved 4e, it was improved by Essentials. it is better to not have every class built the same way.


And I genuinely believe that in a class based game, a class can only be "simple" if it is both simple to build and to play.

 

[Charlaquin]

Okay, that makes your position basically, "The game shouldn't have a simple caster", then.

Well, no, that’s not what I believe. I just don’t believe ease of building is an essential component of a simple class. I was just adopting your preferred terminology for ease of communication, because you expressed interest in better understanding my position.

Then that isn't a 6e, it's a different game entirely. Which is fine, it just isn't the same thing as what the OP is asking, because it is asking for what "the simple caster" of a 6e should be.

I disagree that it wouldn’t be 6e, and it’s up to the OP to decide if my perspective is useful for their purposes.

As much as I loved 4e, it was improved by Essentials. it is better to not have every class built the same way.

I’m not arguing for every class to be built the same way. Again, there are avenues of class diversity other than ease of play. I actually think Essentials was a good example of simple underlying mechanics. Could have done with more customizable class builds through more power selection, but for the most part I think it worked pretty well.

And I genuinely believe that in a class based game, a class can only be "simple" if it is both simple to build and to play.

That’s fine, we don’t need to have the same opinion about that.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Okay, that makes your position basically, "The game shouldn't have a simple caster", then.

i think that makes their position "the game lets any caster be the simple caster"

 

[Charlaquin]

i think that makes their position "the game lets any caster be the simple caster"

Her position, but yes.

 

[R_J_K75]

I've said this in other threads, but I stopped playing D&D. I bought the 2024 5E, played it a few times, but wasn't for me or my group. As D&D has progressed through the years it should learn how be simpler and trim the fat, which it hasn't. I want a 6E which is diet D&D.

 

[Yaarel]

Then by your definitions I guess what I’m arguing for is a simple game with complex classes. ... You can build class identity with individual class features. The baseline game mechanics should be simple and universal, in my opinion.

Can you give a brief example of what you mean by simple game (engine?) and a (simple but complexifiable?) caster class?

 

[Charlaquin]

Can you give a brief example of what you mean by simple game (engine?) and a (simple but complexifiable?) caster class?

You’re essentially asking me to “briefly” design a game system and a class for it, which is a bit easier said than done… but, as I said earlier, I think @doctorbadwolf ‘s suggestions in post 92 were a good starting point for a simple casting system. From there it’s a matter of offering a number of classes, which offer varying features that apply on top of that base system, some of which build on it in very basic ways (more damage, small rider effects, etc.), and some of which offer more complex alternatives - e.g. new options for effect packages (much like 5e’s spells) one can spend their spell points on; or granting new parallel resource pools you can spend on other things; maybe some abilities that can only be used under certain conditions rather than costing a resource. That’s the beauty of exceptions-based design, you can pretty much add whatever new mechanics or subsystems you want on top of the baseline system.