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?"

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Subclasses come into play when you are using comparison and base assumptions.

Engineers are complexity scale from 1 to 10 where 1 is the most simple you can make this class work and be balanced and 10 is the most complex.

Say that we're attempting to make a simple arcane caster that is between 2 and 5 whose subclasses can increased that complexity by 1-5 points.

IMHO the base 2014 fighter and barbarian aren't the most simple classes 5th edition made, and they would be classified as a 3. The 2024 versions are more complex. And I would say that they are now a 4 and a 5 respectedly.

Then, you add subclasses. The champion and the berserker are the most simple. It's so complexity wise, they might be a one additional point of complexity. Every other subclass in the game for in all 2 classes increases complexity by 2 or more. In some cases, for a spellcaster subclass, you might be increasing complexity by 4 or 5..

My point is that if you use the simplest class plus the simplest class as the basis of what you consider simple, you're still half way up to complexity scale.

Champion fighter is managing accident surges. Second, when uses and indomitable uses. And I forgot the inspiration points that recover every turn when you get to high level.

They didn't combine them all into one resource.

The simplest class subclass combination in 2024 and 2014 starts with 2 additional resources and gets a 3rd. And every single other subclass for that class gives you a 4th.

You can make an arcane class that is as simple as the fighter, but IMHO i wouldn't call that class simple.

I think sometimes defini

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.

I don't think we need a fighter of the complexity of the 0e or 3e Fighter or Thief.
"Simple" I think will always be measured in comparison to other examples, we don't need something that is "absolutely simple".
Maybe there are players that really only want an auto-pilot character

But getting rid of the 5E spellcasting system seems the requirement for simple, because it really is a lot of complexity:

• Spell descriptions are already a complex system: All that the boiler plate that defines the basics of the spell, like range, action, school, level, up-cast benefits, and than the actual spell description which has its own rules.
• The way you learn and prepare spells - especially since for some classes, these are seperate things - has its own complexity, that they are similar but different makes it worse.
• Casting spells involves managing multiple similar but discrete resources in the form of spell slots.

I would definitely settle for "has at least a subclass that is as simple as a spell-less fighter or rogue subclass." This removes a lot of complex subsystems, but of couse it will still leave some subsystems to manage. The existing ighter or rogue however don't need to be optimzied to our simple distinction, just the first thing to compare toward.

That's still not as simple as a 0e Fighter. It might be as simple as some 3E Fighters (because the Fighter bonus feats in 3E did almost require you to get involved in the 3E complex subsystems like Tripping, Disarming, Sundering, Power Attack, Attacks of Opportunities, Grappling and so on, or at least require you to look at them before you discard them for "simple" feats...)

Ideally the choices at each level should be clear and limited, but there should still be some choices over the levels (maybe in addition to choices provided by subclasses). I think part of that is about presentation - instead of giving a lot of options you have to consider every round, spell out what each feature or ability is for more clearly. Instead of saying choosing 2 spells from a list of dozens or more, you get a choice like. "You get a magic ability to help you move on the battlefield, these are your n options, where n might somtimes be the number of subclasses."
Alterantively, it might be "You know that ability that helps you get around the battlefield? This subclass lets you leave behind a wall of fire in your tracks, and that one lets you teleport instead, and this one lets you take a friend with you."

Particularly in combat, there shoud also be still some class-specific choices left, but they could probably be more siloed. A spell can be anything - attack, heal, control, buff, or utility for travel or information gathering or something else. And it could be any level and any type of action. This can often lead to analysis paralysis.

To counter this, I think you need to define the options in some sort of silos that you can distinguish.
Say, you explicitely have a magic action that either attacks, heals, controls, buffs or has some utility (like for travel, exploration). Each subclass might add its unique features for that (and maybe not all offer every option). But you still have different options each round, and must decide which one to take. Analysis Paralysis isn't gone entirely, but the space of options is smaller, and more straightforward, the biggest thing is to figure out if you rather want to attack, control, heal, buff or check if your utilities can help.

I'd still say layering a simple mana/force/focus/maneuver/resource point system on top is okay, even if that is additional complexity.
The goal would be that at least some, if not all, subclassses keep that pretty straightforward, like simply boosting the available actions. So you can at least say "I hit it, but with emphasis" and have a bit of tactical choices. "Okay, now that I have advantage, I boost my attack's damage", "now that I have disadvantage, I rather provide a buff to an ally". "now that my ally is reduced to 0 hit points, I provide him with a bigger heal"