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

[doctorbadwolf]

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..

Nah. This, imo, is a bunk take.

The fighter and barbarian are quite simple. I have never seen a fan of simple characters take issue with either of them, never seen a new playing struggle with them, etc.

They easy. Very. A simole caster doesnt need to be "10 page rpg character" simple, just as simple as the simple existing classes.

 

[Minigiant]

Nah. This, imo, is a bunk take.

The fighter and barbarian are quite simple. I have never seen a fan of simple characters take issue with either of them, never seen a new playing struggle with them, etc.

The fighter and barbarian are not simple. Only the champion and berserker are. If 90% of the subclass are semicomplex or complex....

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The fighter and barbarian are not simple. Only the champion and berserker are. If 90% of the subclass are semicomplex or complex....

The class isnt the subclasses. Both classes are simple.

Especially when discussing class design, objecting that a class isnt simple because most of its subclasses are complex is a ridiculous distraction from the discussion, at best. (Also IMO false but hey whatever)

 

[Minigiant]

The class isnt the subclasses. Both classes are simple.

Especially when discussing class design, objecting that a class isnt simple because most of its subclasses are complex is a ridiculous distraction from the discussion, at best. (Also IMO false but hey whatever)

The subclasses all but one increased complexity of the whole. You might have an argument if each had 3 simple subclasses. Or even TWO.

You could maybe make an argument that the 2014 versions of the fighter and barbarian were simple.

But they were also both bad and unbalanced by their level of simplicity. Any subclass that did not increase was even weaker.

The 2024 versions of both classes are not simple. Fighter added more resource management. Barbarians gained additional Action options.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The subclasses all but one increased complexity of the whole. You might have an argument if each had 3 simple subclasses. Or even TWO.

You could maybe make an argument that the 2014 versions of the fighter and barbarian were simple.

But they were also both bad and unbalanced by their level of simplicity. Any subclass that did not increase was even weaker.

The 2024 versions of both classes are not simple. Fighter added more resource management. Barbarians gained additional Action options.

The classes are still far more simpler than something like a Wizardthat already has to think about 9 spells, each with its own rules, at 1st level and only grows from there.

It's not like a "simple" class must be one that can be played on auto-pilot by a dire ape.

 

[tetrasodium]

The classes are still far more simpler than something like a Wizardthat already has to think about 9 spells, each with its own rules, at 1st level and only grows from there.

It's not like a "simple" class must be one that can be played on auto-pilot by a dire ape.

Simpler is not necessarily the same as simple though.

 

[Minigiant]

The classes are still far more simpler than something like a Wizardthat already has to think about 9 spells, each with its own rules, at 1st level and only grows from there.

It's not like a "simple" class must be one that can be played on auto-pilot by a dire ape.

Simpler doesn't mean simple.

Simple here isnt defined.

1. Simple could be autopilot.
2. Simple could mean few choices only engaging in the base d20 mechanics
3. Simple could mean few choices, only engaging in an additional subsystem that only uses the base d20 mechanics
4. Simple could mean resourceless outside of HP
5. Simple could mean only having 1 resource outside of HP

My points are:
None and Zero of the official caster classes do any of 1-5
Fighter only does 3
Barbarians only does 3 and 5

Fighter and Barbarian arent really simple. They are simpler than the official casters. But the official casters are all really complex.

Nothing reaches the level of a 0e-3e Fighter or thief. None even reaches down to an 1e cleric.