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

[Artamo]

It's the "confused player during character generation" element that IMO really has to go.

Yeah, I still don’t think they’ve quite gotten that one nailed down. I do think the new PHB is better at it than the 2014 version though.

 

[Minigiant]

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.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

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.

 

[Remathilis]

And the problem there is...?

It can get in line with the three hundred other b/x clones (with or without ascending AC)

 

[Zardnaar]

It can get in line with the three hundred other b/x clones (with or without ascending AC)

303. You forgot some.

 

[Horwath]

If you really want "simpler" casters, remove the bonus spell lists from all subclasses. Then make almost every classes spell prep change only on level up rather than per day. (Wizard is the sole exception). Once you have everyone only having 2-3 spells per spell level rather than 5+, the amount of analysis paralysis will drop.

that is the 5E sorcerer, but it was given nothing to replace the nonflexibility as the wanted streamline caster multiclass progression.
3.5e sorcerer had more spell slots, usually +2 per spell level more.

If sorcerer started with 2 spells, got +1 spell at every level to 11 and then extra spell at levels 13,15,17 then it would be no problem giving them +2 spell slots per spell level.
and sorcery points on short rest.

 

[tetrasodium]

I don't see a reason for a "simple caster" unless you redefine "caster" in a way that makes it start to include stuff like the arcane archer where the "simple" spellcasting is streamlined down to choosing an element or whatever for your arrow.

The nature of spellcasting means that effectively playing a spellcaster requires the player to juggle knowing what spell choice to use in any given situation and when not to use a spell that your party doesn't need. The only way to make that "simple" without stripping it down to be like arcane archer is to accept that the resulting class will be so overtuned that it becomes S+++ tier when played with even a little thought &:skill.

 

[CreamCloud0]

if you wanted a resourceless caster, would you be able to give them anything other than cantrips and ritual spells? expertise i guess, it's not explicitly a caster trait specifically but applied in the right way can be applicable.

 

[M_Natas]

That's fair enough too. It's just if you have one-on-one time to explain it to the player, they seem to do really well. But, it is hard to explain over and over again how/when/where certain spells work. But you are right, both are elements that could be improved with a simple caster.

This, when I started out playing with my Nephews who were 5 and 8 at the time - the younger one played a sorcerer. And it worked, because I went with him trough his spell casting choices and what his character could do ... like, if you have a more or less experienced DM or Player helping the newbie to create a character, most classes a not hard to grasp.

I don't see a reason for a "simple caster" unless you redefine "caster" in a way that makes it start to include stuff like the arcane archer where the "simple" spellcasting is streamlined down to choosing an element or whatever for your arrow.

The nature of spellcasting means that effectively playing a spellcaster requires the player to juggle knowing what spell choice to use in any given situation and when not to use a spell that your party doesn't need. The only way to make that "simple" without stripping it down to be like arcane archer is to accept that the resulting class will be so overtuned that it becomes S+++ tier when played with even a little thought &:skill.

I would imagine, a "simplified" Spellcaster is more akin to a Superhero. Shooting energy blasts from your hands instead of casting spells, creating energy shields, maybe flying ... like a super condensed set of abilities that are magical instead of picking 20+ spells out of a list of 200 spells. Because thats what a Super Hero is: A condesed set of two to four magical (supernatural) abilities.
Super heroes with a bigger set of abilities always end up as someting that looks more like a wizard.
Like - look at the Teen Titans. Robin ... okay, that one is a rogue.
Starfire: Can shoot Energy "Starbolts" (Firebolt? with Force-Energy), can Fly, release all the energy at once (Fireball) ...
Cyborg is more akin to an Artificer/Warforged.
Beast Boy is an at-will Wildshaper.
And then there is raven. A literal Wizard.

A simple Spellcaster would be more akin to Starfire - or Cyclops or any of the other Superheroes whos main abilitiy it is to just shoot some kind of energy/fire/elemental thingy at their enemies.

 

[tetrasodium]

This, when I started out playing with my Nephews who were 5 and 8 at the time - the younger one played a sorcerer. And it worked, because I went with him trough his spell casting choices and what his character could do ... like, if you have a more or less experienced DM or Player helping the newbie to create a character, most classes a not hard to grasp.


I would imagine, a "simplified" Spellcaster is more akin to a Superhero. Shooting energy blasts from your hands instead of casting spells, creating energy shields, maybe flying ... like a super condensed set of abilities that are magical instead of picking 20+ spells out of a list of 200 spells. Because thats what a Super Hero is: A condesed set of two to four magical (supernatural) abilities.
Super heroes with a bigger set of abilities always end up as someting that looks more like a wizard.
Like - look at the Teen Titans. Robin ... okay, that one is a rogue.
Starfire: Can shoot Energy "Starbolts" (Firebolt? with Force-Energy), can Fly, release all the energy at once (Fireball) ...
Cyborg is more akin to an Artificer/Warforged.
Beast Boy is an at-will Wildshaper.
And then there is raven. A literal Wizard.

A simple Spellcaster would be more akin to Starfire - or Cyclops or any of the other Superheroes whos main abilitiy it is to just shoot some kind of energy/fire/elemental thingy at their enemies.

Mostly agree but think that also gets to the problem with calling fora blaster by way of calling for a "simple arcane caster". No matter how tight and well designed the resulting blaster is, "arcane caster" is too broad of a power set to avoid endless best in class near enough equivalent features getting added on like so many sorlock builds include.

In short, the question along with its resulting goal is too simple and fails to account for the fact that "arcane caster" means buff debuff control utility (sometimes/possibly) magic item crafting and more but phrases things in a way that demands hooks in all of those . Those hooks result in stuff like all the absurd S tier sorlock)hexadin/bardlock extreme SAD multiclassed over the top shenanigans because the "simple" class was built with the design expectation that it would old ever be played by someone who plays with no thought.

Look at mmo class roles for what the question should be

*Should there be a simple glass cannon blaster? Uhh no... Being an effective blaster means knowing how to manage your positioning resource burn & "aggro" by learning how and when to shift from phoning in the damage to dumping a truckload of hurt asap.

*Could there be a simple blaster? Sure but it shouldn't be achieved by making the near enough best in class blaster able to operate at full maximum power burn followed by a special recovery method where they can just guilt the group into a looping 5mwd of nova->short rest->repeat.

*Could there be a simple magic item crafter? Not really, that takes too much thought into party/system understanding and it only kinda works with the 5e because they oversimplified magic items and removed their needed churn.

* Should there be a simple magic item crafter? No because that's just a class built around the magic weapon spell until you swap "simple" for something else

* Could there be a simple controller class? probably not because that's usually called a "tank" class and even then a good tank takes some thought and understanding of how to fill the role for their party.

*Should there be a simple buff/debuff class? Probably not, the top tier buff/debuff class is usually also the top tier controller class with good reason. Both sides of that coin are important roles in a group and are almost always appreciated but they aren't always needed. Knowing when to focus on one the other or neither is not a simple matter and the only way to really make it simple is to stick weaker versions of its abilities into other possibly complex classes as near ribbon level abilities or making the result silly overpowered when played with some thought & understanding.

TLDR; in short the "should their be a simple arcane spellcaster" question should be ignored by designers until it can be phrased in a way that shows the questioner understands what they are asking for enough to be specific enough to convey role/niche understanding while asking. Once that happens then it just becomes something like "is there a need for this not already better filled by a simple guide or pregenfor that class?"