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

[Minigiant]

You were the one who introduced definitions lacking face validity, so you have no grounds to complain about anyone else's definitions.

Your definition still says fighters and barbarian arent simple.

Weapon Mastery and Some Swappable In-Subclass choices.

 

[Zardnaar]

Well fightervand rogues are the least complicated according to wotc

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

Your definition still says fighters and barbarian arent simple.

Weapon Mastery and Some Swappable In-Subclass choices.

Did you forget that this entire thr3ad is about a hypothetical new edition?

Subclasses do not determine whether the class is simple. The class does. Period. This derail about subclasses on the existing simple classes (and yes, they hoth do have multiple simple subclasses) is not useful on any level.