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

[Remathilis]

I maintain that if a new player, who has never played the games, needs to read through a 15+ spell descriptions and understand them, it's not a simple class. At first level, every full caster is looking at 20+ cantrips and 1st level spells to read, many in the 30s or 40s.

This is the tension between rules and rulings though. When a spell has a single defined feature and parameters, it acts as a single tool. The problem comes quickly that unless every problem is solved with the few tools you have on hand, people will naturally seek more and more tools. If healing hp costs an action and must be a touch distance, naturally someone will want weaker healing at range using a bonus action. Now there are two healing spells to track. Want to heal more than one person? We move up to four. Etc.

But what is the solution? A single healing spell that does all that stuff depending on caster parameters? You've just made casting more complex for player and DM? Does all that stuff at once? OP. Only one effect exists? People will reinvent them anyway. Simple=limited only works for onboarding, but people quickly seek more complex options even if they get overwhelmed by them.

 

[Scott Christian]

I have been thinking about it, and when we talk about a simple casting class, the spells should be looked at more than the class progression. That is the "confused player during combat" piece that I see. It happens much more often than "confused player while levelling up."

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Y'all know that many experienced players prefer simple characters, right?

The simple caster isn't just so that newbs can play a caster, or so the player who doens't understand the rules can, or anything like that.

Plenty of experienced players who understand the game simply prefer to play a champion fighter over a battlemaster fighter.

 

[ECMO3]

This is not an arcane class. And attacks normally weapon based so its more a martial than a caster.

The question was not which class is the simple Arcane class, but rather which class should be the simple Arcane casting class.

IMO Ranger should be the "simple" Arcane casting class.

 

[TwoSix]

This is the tension between rules and rulings though. When a spell has a single defined feature and parameters, it acts as a single tool. The problem comes quickly that unless every problem is solved with the few tools you have on hand, people will naturally seek more and more tools. If healing hp costs an action and must be a touch distance, naturally someone will want weaker healing at range using a bonus action. Now there are two healing spells to track. Want to heal more than one person? We move up to four. Etc.

Wouldn't the simplest solution to just be to not do that? Other spells can be added through magic items or by adding new classes with their own discrete spell list.

 

[CreamCloud0]

The question was not which class is the simple Arcane class, but rather which class should be the simple Arcane casting class.

IMO Ranger should be the "simple" Arcane casting class.

well, i suppose it might be less awful a ranger than 5.5's 'hunter's mark the class'

 

[jmartkdr2]

This is the tension between rules and rulings though. When a spell has a single defined feature and parameters, it acts as a single tool. The problem comes quickly that unless every problem is solved with the few tools you have on hand, people will naturally seek more and more tools. If healing hp costs an action and must be a touch distance, naturally someone will want weaker healing at range using a bonus action. Now there are two healing spells to track. Want to heal more than one person? We move up to four. Etc.

But what is the solution? A single healing spell that does all that stuff depending on caster parameters? You've just made casting more complex for player and DM? Does all that stuff at once? OP. Only one effect exists? People will reinvent them anyway. Simple=limited only works for onboarding, but people quickly seek more complex options even if they get overwhelmed by them.

Not for nothing, but this is pretty easy to solve: at level 1, you can heal 2d8 hp at touch range. At level 3, this goes up to 4d8 (etc). In addition, you can heal at 30 ft range but it's d4s. At level 9, you can heal up to 6 targets with one action 1/day.

Add a general "cast as a bonus action 2/ short rest," and you're only slightly more complex than a champion.

 

[Remathilis]

Wouldn't the simplest solution to just be to not do that? Other spells can be added through magic items or by adding new classes with their own discrete spell list.

That depends. Do you want 6 classes with 15 spells per level or 15 classes with 6 spells per level?

 

[Remathilis]

Not for nothing, but this is pretty easy to solve: at level 1, you can heal 2d8 hp at touch range. At level 3, this goes up to 4d8 (etc). In addition, you can heal at 30 ft range but it's d4s. At level 9, you can heal up to 6 targets with one action 1/day.

Add a general "cast as a bonus action 2/ short rest," and you're only slightly more complex than a champion.

Ar that point, your building the.complexity into the spell itself, which is a different type of complexity. Players already forget to upgrade cantrip damage, so making more spells scale in nonlinear ways based on level would probably not solve the problem either.

I'm not saying it's a bad idea, but it's trading one type of problem for another

 

[Tigris]

Ar that point, your building the.complexity into the spell itself, which is a different type of complexity. Players already forget to upgrade cantrip damage, so making more spells scale in nonlinear ways based on level would probably not solve the problem either.

I'm not saying it's a bad idea, but it's trading one type of problem for another

Well an idea here:

You just exchange at some higher levels 1 lower level spell with a higher level one. And print the spells out as cards for the players. So there is no scaling to be remembered