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

[Tigris]

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.

Ever done martial arts? You know thete is not a thing called "basic attsck" but there are 40+ different attacks normally all with a name.


All with a specific purpose to be done from a specific position against a specific body part.


And still in D&D martials are simplified classses.


So there is really no reason why there cant be a simple spellcaster which just slings fire st the enemy. You dont need 20× spells for that.


And even as I said before: Dungeons and Dragons 4th edition does have a simple caster which works. The elementalist. It is as skmple than the simple 4e classes.

I am speaking about the LATER SIMPLIFIED classes NOT ORIGINAL classes of 4e.


You choose 1 of 4 elements (whichh gives a strong single target cantrip and a way to empower cantrips) and then 1 of 2 area cantrips (for that element) and thats it.

 

[Tigris]

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.

A simple caster can have some ressource. A fighter also has action surge and second wind.

 

[CreamCloud0]

A simple caster can have some ressource. A fighter also has action surge and second wind.

i'm aware simple is not the same as resourceless, i was just wondering if there were any other mechanics casters had claim on which didn't require tracking uses

honestly i wonder if you could try a simple caster as design variant on warlocks, give them unlimited pact casting but on a 1/3rd caster progression and only 1st level spells known (maybe limited access to a few higher ones through mystic arcarnum), no need to track slots and only having a small pool of spells to memorize all being cast at the same level.

 

[tetrasodium]

Ever done martial arts? You know thete is not a thing called "basic attsck" but there are 40+ different attacks normally all with a name.


All with a specific purpose to be done from a specific position against a specific body part.


And still in D&D martials are simplified classses.


So there is really no reason why there cant be a simple spellcaster which just slings fire st the enemy. You dont need 20× spells for that.


And even as I said before: Dungeons and Dragons 4th edition does have a simple caster which works. The elementalist. It is as skmple than the simple 4e classes.

I am speaking about the LATER SIMPLIFIED classes NOT ORIGINAL classes of 4e.


You choose 1 of 4 elements (whichh gives a strong single target cantrip and a way to empower cantrips) and then 1 of 2 area cantrips (for that element) and thats it.

Which of those 40 would you say was comparable to multitarget spells like web slow fog cloud firewall scorching ray &acid fog or single person ones like hold person ray of enfeeblement disintegrate? Don't forget teleport tiny hut alarm locate person/object/monster summon x & so on, can you dig up some examples of of those 40+ filling those roles?

 

[Maxperson]

Sorcerer - same as the 3e version where it has spells, it has slots, and it's good to go. No preparation or pre-memorization, nothing to track except slots remaining, if the spell's on your list and you've got a slot of that level* left for the day, you can cast it. Easy peasy. Regains slots on long rest only.

* - yes, this specifically means no upcasting or other metamagics that only serve to add complexity - spells that scale (of which ideally there'd be relatively few) would automatically do so with level.

The 3e Warlock was simple. What does it do. Eldritch blast with some riders that don't change once you pick them. You get even fewer spells than a sorcerer and they just sort of last forever since they are at will. There's not a lot to the class once stuff is selected.

The 5e Warlock has more, but less than Sorcerer or Wizard, so is the simple 5e caster.

 

[Yaarel]

"Simple" means, no resource tracking (always-on, at-will), a handful of effective versatilely applicable options (like in an old school videogame). Nothing fiddly, nothing useless: there are no crap options at certain levels. All choices matter.

With regard to daily resources and resource management, various magic items can be these if the player chooses these.

 

[Blue]

Note the [+] thread; if you don't believe there should even be simple classes, this isn't the thread for you. I respect your opinion but it would not be fruitful to discuss it here.

Folks, please respect the [+] thread and do not argue that there should not be a simple caster.

 

[Umbran]

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.

Mod note:
This is a (+) thread.
If you are not in board with the basic premise, then please hold your commentary for an apppropriate discussion.

 

[Remathilis]

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.

The original 3.5 warlock would be the best way to handle a simple caster. One specific spell/power (Eldritch blast) that you can modify and a few minor magical tricks to provide defense and support abilities. A magical ranged version of the sneak attack rogue. IMHO, 5e messed up that simplicity by both making warlocks actual casters and then giving them the only weird caster progression in the game. What should be a simple "magical" character ends up needing advanced knowledge of builds (gish vs caster vs pet), spell scaling (or why shield is a bad warlock spell) and casting with no transferable knowledge to any of the other casters in the game. The warlock is simple to play but complicated to build, hence making it no better than any other spellcaster.

 

[Tigris]

i'm aware simple is not the same as resourceless, i was just wondering if there were any other mechanics casters had claim on which didn't require tracking uses

honestly i wonder if you could try a simple caster as design variant on warlocks, give them unlimited pact casting but on a 1/3rd caster progression and only 1st level spells known (maybe limited access to a few higher ones through mystic arcarnum), no need to track slots and only having a small pool of spells to memorize all being cast at the same level.

Ah sure! Thats a good side discussion. What could we do in a sinole caster without ressources.


well "Cantrips" for me are "at will spells". So this can of course look different than 5e cantrips. It can be like the 13th ages auto scaling (like leveled spells) at will spells.

Of course you could also do something like taking normal spells, being able zo cast them an unlimited number of times but on a lower level, the only problem is that at low level like level 1 you would need to invent lower casting levels for these spells to work.


A simple spellcaster could also have "rituals". Which may be different than normal "at will spells" as they need to be cast outside combat and take a long while.


This could of course be non combat spells, but one could also do "armor of agathys" as a ritual or similar "limited buffs". Important here is that the number of rituals is limited else it becomes again complicated. (This could also include creating magical items, which only last a limited time (Wyrdwood wand the rpg allows that with some rituals))


another thing which could be used would be auras /aspects. Of which you only can have 1 active at a time. (This is something some simple 4e classes used).

5e paladin auras or 3.5 binder vestiges come to mind here. (Again not too many and not too complicated).

So like the 4e runepriest or the 4e vestige warlock. You have 2 states which give different aspects from which you can choose (and change from one into the other). Runepriest gave kind of an aura and vestiges warlock debuff on enemy you attack or selfbuff when an enemy dies.

Which of those 40 would you say was comparable to multitarget spells like web slow fog cloud firewall scorching ray &acid fog or single person ones like hold person ray of enfeeblement disintegrate? Don't forget teleport tiny hut alarm locate person/object/monster summon x & so on, can you dig up some examples of of those 40+ filling those roles?

Well magic does not necessarily mean that these exact spells need to be there. There are also less powerfull magic subsystems.


Also non combat spells like tiny hut can easily be rituals and with this in a different subsystem than spellcasting (like 4e did).


Also depending of the magic powerlevel the martial power level can be equal.

A legsweep can be a multi targeted attack (on a small scale) which can hinder enemy mobility (like web). On a bigger scale you could as a martial shatter the ground with your immense strength.

Hold person is literally just a grab. Or if you want a disabling effect: A punch to the solar plexus.

Debuffs could be holds which break arms or legs. (or just make them hurt a lot if its temporary).


So there is no reason to only make simple martials nor to make only complex casters.