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

Which (6e) caster class should be the "simple" one?


  • This poll will close: .

log in or register to remove this ad

Honestly, I don't hate this, assuming they get at least one cantrip with scaling damage, which should probably be automatically granted: "You get one of X, Y or Z and two other cantrips of your choice at first level."

Add more cantrips at second level and probably some other class benefit, then give a few actual X/day spells starting at level 3, based on subclasses.

Maybe very few experienced players would gravitate to the class, but I bet a lot of new players would love it.

I was thinking 1-3 more dice on damaging cantrips.

Then a subclass with more raw boosts to damage.

A subclass that buffs utility cantrips and gives you combat uses of them. Like using light to blind.

Then your standard 1/3 caster subclass.

And a subclass that gives a ritual book and classical tier defining spells X/LR as a wizard replacement for people whi wanna be wizards but not manage all those spells.
 

I was thinking 1-3 more dice on damaging cantrips.

Then a subclass with more raw boosts to damage.

A subclass that buffs utility cantrips and gives you combat uses of them. Like using light to blind.

Then your standard 1/3 caster subclass.

And a subclass that gives a ritual book and classical tier defining spells X/LR as a wizard replacement for people whi wanna be wizards but not manage all those spells.
These are all great ideas, especially when you slice up the complexity of given spellcasters and silo each portion off into different subclasses for your cantrip caster, so none of them gets all of the existing complexity, but they get a piece of the puzzle, making it easier for their next character, should they choose to go that route, be a full-fledged, more complicated class to play.
 


Remove ads

Top