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

[Minigiant]

I don't think anyoone is asking for Candyland levels of simple. Just simple by DnD standards.

If the fighter isn't a simple class by dnd standards, what is? Or at least which class is simpler than fighter?

Asked the question pages back. Got no answer.

I stated many versions of simple and asked which one would you want. And described how you might accomplish it.

Got no answer nor response.

Believe because in all seriousness, there are people who frequent ENworld who themselves not want to play this class..

A Sjmple Arcane Caster would be not be popular with ENworlders. A simple arcane caster that would appeal to ENworlders as a whole would be redundant with other classes

Hence the poll results: Sorcerer with less spells known.
Not simple at all.

 

[Remathilis]

IMO, a simple arcane caster either only casts cantrips or only knows 1-5 spells total period.

The problem would be making sure such a character is strong enough to pull his weight. I mean, the sidekick classes are about as dead simple as you can be, but they don't exactly punch at the weight limit of the 2014 champion. Then again, if you are willing to accept simple = weak, then you have solved the issue.

 

[Minigiant]

The problem would be making sure such a character is strong enough to pull his weight. I mean, the sidekick classes are about as dead simple as you can be, but they don't exactly punch at the weight limit of the 2014 champion. Then again, if you are willing to accept simple = weak, then you have solved the issue.

Powering up a class is easy.

The baseline for years was a EB spamming Warlock.

Take out the level 1-9 spells, hardcover the invocations as class features. Buff the support cantrips. Boom.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Asked the question pages back. Got no answer.

I stated many versions of simple and asked which one would you want. And described how you might accomplish it.

Got no answer nor response.

Believe because in all seriousness, there are people who frequent ENworld who themselves not want to play this class..

A Sjmple Arcane Caster would be not be popular with ENworlders. A simple arcane caster that would appeal to ENworlders as a whole would be redundant with other classes

Hence the poll results: Sorcerer with less spells known.
Not simple at all.

If you don't believe there should be a simple class, then you really shouldn't be commenting on a + thread about simple classes.

 

[Minigiant]

If you don't believe there should be a simple class, then you really shouldn't be commenting on a + thread about simple classes.

I wanted a s I mole arcane class before this thread exist.

I even designed one.

My point is that many people here dont really agree with what simple is and wouldn't play the class anyway.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Powering up a class is easy.

The baseline for years was a EB spamming Warlock.

Take out the level 1-9 spells, hardcover the invocations as class features. Buff the support cantrips. Boom.

even if you only ever gave them level 1 spell slots, there are a ton of good and great 1st level utility spells and just let them agonizing blast cantrip spam for damage.

Edit:
alarm, animal friendship, bane, beast bond, bless, command, comprehend languages, create/destroy water, detect magic, detect poison and disease, disguise self, entangle, faerie fire, feather fall, find familiar, identify, jump, mage armour, purify food and drink, silent image, sleep, speak with animals, tenser's floating disk, unseen servant.
you might think some of are too complex to be on an 'easy caster's' list, or that i might of missed something or other that should be there but you get the point of their range of options purely on 1st level slots.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I don't play sorcerers much, but...

What if you took away most of their known spells, simplified the spells slots, and made metamagic free?

Like if you choose careful spells, you can always use it any time you cast an area spell, as long as you dont use any other metamagic on that action.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Also, perhaps the way to go, @EzekielRaiden, is to make the simple arcane caster first, and use it as the standard for simple classes.

So if the simple sorcerer is as i suggested just above this post, then the fights might look like its current form but it can choose which weapon mastery to use with each attack action, and its uses of action surge and second wind would be combined and balanced on the spell slots of the simple sorcerer.

And perhaps each mastery has an active "technique" you can use after you use a second wind, or something.

Both classes have a simple limited resource that powers 3-6 individual "powers", and some at-will abilities that modify thier main action abilities. They wouldnt feel samey because it wiuldnt be the same structure or presentation or even exact same numbers, and of course the effects would be quite different.

And then a complex subclass could expand what you can do with your masteries/metamagics and such, turning you fully into a martial "power" based character or a fully realized caster, while simple subclasses just give simple passive buffs to your base class abilities.

 

[Tigris]

The problem would be making sure such a character is strong enough to pull his weight. I mean, the sidekick classes are about as dead simple as you can be, but they don't exactly punch at the weight limit of the 2014 champion. Then again, if you are willing to accept simple = weak, then you have solved the issue.

Why does simpler have to mean weak?

The 2014 does not put its weight because the people who created it were bad at math and way way overestimate how strong crits are.


The simple classes (ranger and paladin) in 13th age, which is a D&D like, are pulling their weight.

In 4E the elementalist sorcerer also did pull its weight.



If the class only has cantrips, thats fine, if the cantrips are strong enough. The class should just also have something else than just damage. Having good riders on the 2-3 cantrips they can cast as one example.

Also, perhaps the way to go, @EzekielRaiden, is to make the simple arcane caster first, and use it as the standard for simple classes.

So if the simple sorcerer is as i suggested just above this post, then the fights might look like its current form but it can choose which weapon mastery to use with each attack action, and its uses of action surge and second wind would be combined and balanced on the spell slots of the simple sorcerer.

We should really not assume 6E is just 5E homebrew and take the 5e problems with it.


Like "be able to use different weapon masteries with the weapon" is more complicated than just giving the fighter 2 maneuvers they can always use (instead of basic attacks).


I also dont think by combining second wind and action surge it becomes really simpler. Having 1 card you can use once, and then it goes away, is really really simple. The simplest way to track ressources, you know what you can do and if its there or not. If you can just use action surge (and also here, why complicate it like "you get another action" and instead just make it "you attack 2 times as much as normal") and second wind once per short rest (and have a short rest automatic after each combat), then its easier than having to track 3 "slots" which needed to be tracked "Oh did I forget to mark that use in this combat?, oh and did this now count as a short rest, and did I get a slot back?"