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

[doctorbadwolf]

On top of this:

I would also say these options are too many and still not interesting.

All you do is just damage. Even martials got away from that in 5.24.


You dont need 3 different area attack and 2 single target attacks.


Having 1 area attack and 1 single target attack which do have different riders (not just damage) is enough. Maybe on higher levels a 3rd option.


Choosing between damage types just favours metagaming and makes it complicated with not much gain for beginners, but also beginners like it when their attacks do also knock an enemy prone or similar things.

Thank you. [Office.gif]

For everyone saying that the warlock is simple, they are forgetting it's the most complex class to build at level up. You have to decide if you are going gish or eb spam before you ever touch the class because that effects everything from your spells to invocations to patron. You have to plan ahead to figure out what abilities to take and understand the basic nature of combat and magic to make those choices. You can build a warlock that is a slap-dash mix of abilities you think are cool and then end up with a Warlock with armor of shadows, devil's sight, and fiendish vigor, along with toll the dead and blade ward as cantrips and not be leveraging either cantrip spam or pact weapons.

You dont have to do any of that. You can go entirely on vibes and the class works fine.

 

[tetrasodium]

this is not a complexity problem, this is "I cant be bothered to read half a page and understand" problem.
no amount of simplicity will help those players. maybe throwing d20s at them every time that they forget EB could help....

I agree, but that was not my point or reason for bringing it up. Something very close to (or identical to) the cookie cutter that forged those players of mine is frequently used to justify things like power level parity and easy use of powerful features under the assumption that the player of a "simple" $x will always be on that level of simply showing up but never giving more.

The reason for bringing it up was because either the entire class along with all of it's features from level 1 all the way to 20 should be done in a way that designs against S-tier multiclass bingo shenanigans like the artificer does(or even a step further). Alternatively being explicit that "I showed up don't expect anything else from me" is a type of player that should never be catered to by any design even for a "simple $whatever".

 

[HeroineIs]

I think Sorcerer makes the most sense as the simple arcane caster. They have fewer spells to manage than a Wizard and don’t need to worry about preparing spells every day, which keeps things straightforward for new players.

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

That's why "simple" can go various ways. I definitely see it as an "in game" situation, not "out of game" like session zero or when levelling up. You have all the time in the world when building a character or increasing a level. You can sit, one-on-one, with the player having difficulty and explain the paths or templates.
But in game? To let someone who is prone to not understanding action economy, visual aspects of the game (like a flippin 20' cone), or to hit rolls vs saves, like calculating whether the creature will have a good save versus a high AC in game, there is so much more time spent with the "in game." And this doesn't even take into account choice paralysis. Give that same person 16 spells and the time doubles.
So for me, "simple" means you give them a social spell, an exploration spell, and a damage spell. That's it. You can add layers to these spells as the person levels. This way, when they are in a situation, their options become clearer.

 

[Minigiant]

You dont have to do any of that. You can go entirely on vibes and the class works fine.

True.
Warlock is the hardest class to screw up. Partially why it is the baseline.

But the warlock still has way too many choices to be considered a simple class.

The simple arcane caster would pretty much be a warlock with the choices picked and prebuilt into the class.

 

[nevin]

Sorcerer.
fewest known/prepared spells.
more spell slots/spell points
ignore all spell components except material with a cost over 1GP
adds prof bonus or cha bonus or both to damage/heal.

Sorcerer/Warlock and honestly I consider the Warlock effectively the Divine/Infernal/fey sorcerer. They both fill the same kind've niche just one is arcane one has patron providing spells.

 

[Remathilis]

I think Sorcerer makes the most sense as the simple arcane caster. They have fewer spells to manage than a Wizard and don’t need to worry about preparing spells every day, which keeps things straightforward for new players.

In 3.5, sure. In 5.5 they are much more complicated thanks to meta magic and sorcery points being a second resource to track.

 

[Minigiant]

In 3.5, sure. In 5.5 they are much more complicated thanks to meta magic and sorcery points being a second resource to track.

Yeah.

"Simple" classes is really just having 1 subsystem.

Just Spell Slots
Just Spell Points
Just Cantrips
Just "I attack"
Just Cure Wounds
Just Rage
Just High Skill Rolls

 

[doctorbadwolf]

True.
Warlock is the hardest class to screw up. Partially why it is the baseline.

But the warlock still has way too many choices to be considered a simple class.

The simple arcane caster would pretty much be a warlock with the choices picked and prebuilt into the class.

Idk i dont think the simple caster needs to be dirt simple, just on part with fighters and barbarians.

So like, assume the EB cantrips, and pair the Pact invocations with automatic other invications at appropriate levels, and maybe shorten the spell list, and i would be pretty happy.

Oh and make it an unarmored defense class.

So at level 1 or two you pick a Pact and automatically get the followup invocations at level 5+, with only a few other invocations as you level, a spell list that is only about twice as many spell as the number you know, and make EB more flexible but it is your only attack cantrip. Make Hex a class feature called Warlock's Curse.

Also, Blade and Chain would lean on EB. Blade would turn it into a melee attack, and Chain lets you cast EB through the familiar. Tome increases complxity by giving more cantrips and more spells both from a large list.

Simple but flexible, and then subclasses can range from simple to complex, with clear guidance about how complex they are in play.

 

[Minigiant]

Idk i dont think the simple caster needs to be dirt simple, just on part with fighters and barbarians.

Here's the key part.

Fighters and barbarians aren't simple..
Each has a simple subclass.

There are no simple classes in fifth edition..

If you want to make a simple arcane Castor or a simple divine caster, it would be the first simple class officially in the game.

There are simple subclass.

There is the champion fighter and the berserker barbarian..

You want to make a full class that is as simple as those classes you would as they are limiting yourself to a single sub system..