D&D 5E What is the "Simple" Full Casting Class?

Which full casting class is the simplest overall?

  • Bard

  • Cleric

  • Druid

  • Sorcerer

  • Warlock

  • Wizard


Results are only viewable after voting.

EzekielRaiden

Follower of the Way
I think any of these classes can be complex in building beyond the basics, especially when adding in multi-classing, but what happens when we multi-class the Champion in crit-fishing builds? Seems very complex to optimize.

I voted based on my impression of average play, not double thinking build optimization.
This is a perennial paradox of 3e-like design, you see it in 3.x, PF1e, and now 5.x. Martial characters are much, much easier to play "straight," but almost always really hard to optimize once you have a solid background in the mechanics, because the resources are so much more scarce and the features rarely play nice with one another. Conversely, full spellcasters (or near-equivalents, like the 5e Warlock) are all very complex to play at baseline, but once you know your charop stuff, the world is your oyster, they've got so many features that you can play with, and most of them interconnect nicely.

Personally, I prefer to judge complexity based on baseline, rather than on pure charop potential. There was actually a vaguely-similar argument WRT 4e classes, albeit without being rooted in caster/martial disparity. Warlocks had much lower output when not optimized compared to (say) Sorcerer or Ranger, but if you did optimize they were just as good as any other option. The "skill floor"--meaning, the minimum skill required to play effectively--was higher for Warlock than pretty much any other Striker. But the "skill ceiling"--the point where diminishing returns kick in for player skill--was pretty much equal to any other Striker.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
This is a perennial paradox of 3e-like design, you see it in 3.x, PF1e, and now 5.x. Martial characters are much, much easier to play "straight," but almost always really hard to optimize once you have a solid background in the mechanics, because the resources are so much more scarce and the features rarely play nice with one another. Conversely, full spellcasters (or near-equivalents, like the 5e Warlock) are all very complex to play at baseline, but once you know your charop stuff, the world is your oyster, they've got so many features that you can play with, and most of them interconnect nicely.

Personally, I prefer to judge complexity based on baseline, rather than on pure charop potential. There was actually a vaguely-similar argument WRT 4e classes, albeit without being rooted in caster/martial disparity. Warlocks had much lower output when not optimized compared to (say) Sorcerer or Ranger, but if you did optimize they were just as good as any other option. The "skill floor"--meaning, the minimum skill required to play effectively--was higher for Warlock than pretty much any other Striker. But the "skill ceiling"--the point where diminishing returns kick in for player skill--was pretty much equal to any other Striker.
5.x casters scale with caster level and cantrips scale with character level. Martials scale with class level.

Most of the defining martial abilities come at 1st or 2nd level and don't scale or don't scale much. (Armor, Shields, Martial Weapons, Fighting Style, Weapon Masteries, Rage, Unarmored Defense, martial arts, etc).

Martials are simple to pilot optimally. One can also pilot almost any caster in a simple manner and still be extremely effective, just not optimal. A simple evocation wizard casting magic missile and fireballs is a great example. Of course casters move away from playing simple as you try to optimize their play.
 




I always presume that the DM is going to not openly say, "Screw you Wizard, you don't get to use your obvious, core class feature that is the only thing even vaguely like 'being a person who does occult, hermetic research.'"

As soon as you allow Wizards to do anything more than pick 2 spells per new level gained, the floodgates open tremendously. Clerics always have one and only one list. Yes, if you're literally a brand-new player who has never seen a character sheet before, it's going to be complex because absolutely every spellcaster is complex.

But think of it this way: The Wizard still has to review every spell on that list in order to pick the six they start with and the two they get every level thereafter (plus cantrips). Even with every supplement made for 5.0, Clerics have 13 spells to choose from. Wizards have 42. You can't tell me that reading through 13 spells and picking a handful of them is harder than reading through 42 and picking a handful of them. It's even worse with level 2 spells: 20 for Clerics, 60 for Wizards. For at least the first 10 character levels, you almost always have Wizards with double to quadruple the number of possible spells (3rd level spells just barely get over that line, with 26 Cleric spells and "only" 51 Wizard spells.) Overall, there are about two and a half times as many Wizard spells (347) as Cleric spells (132).

Clerics never prepare more spells than Wizards with an equivalent casting stat, and the Cleric list almost never changes (seriously, they've gained all of 20 spells over the decade that 5.0 was published). I can't see any argument for how it isn't just straight-up easier (NOT easy, just easier) to get a handle on that.

When choosing spells gained on character creation or level up, a wizard is more work. But as far as ease of decision-making when playing...

Let's generously assume a wizard gets to add enough spells to their spellbook so that the number of spells in it equals that of the spells of a cleric of their level. The cleric still has 2 additional spells per level prepared from their domain. They both have to decide on the same number of spells to prepare for the day, but when it comes to deciding which spells to cast on their tun the cleric has 2 more per level than the wizard. The cleric also has 2 or more channel divinity options, and 1 to 3 uses of them each short rest.

And while I like to add every spell I can to my spellbook, and would give my players options to do so, it seems that a lot of people barely touch that class feature and mostly just stick with their 2 per level, so the wizard likely has less spells to choose from during spell preparation too.
 

ezo

Get off my lawn!
When choosing spells gained on character creation or level up, a wizard is more work. But as far as ease of decision-making when playing...

Let's generously assume a wizard gets to add enough spells to their spellbook so that the number of spells in it equals that of the spells of a cleric of their level. The cleric still has 2 additional spells per level prepared from their domain. They both have to decide on the same number of spells to prepare for the day, but when it comes to deciding which spells to cast on their tun the cleric has 2 more per level than the wizard. The cleric also has 2 or more channel divinity options, and 1 to 3 uses of them each short rest.

And while I like to add every spell I can to my spellbook, and would give my players options to do so, it seems that a lot of people barely touch that class feature and mostly just stick with their 2 per level, so the wizard likely has less spells to choose from during spell preparation too.
All true, but in some ways I say this actually argues against the wizard being the simple casting class.

The reason being because wizards are so hyper-dependent on their spells and casting, having very few other options, it makes the task of spell selection when leveling and choosing which spells to prep for the day a bit more daunting.

IME (anyway), wizards are the only class who come close to routinely swapping out prepared spells, but even that is admittedly on the low side of happening. But this is also the reason I don't but much stock in the difficulty of choosing "today's" spells for other classes compared to wizards. Other classes typically find their role and so rarely swap out changed spells we house-ruled them to known spells at one time!

Wizards, on the other hand, are valued primarily because of their versatility in spell selection and so IME have more pressure on a continuing basis when it comes to spell selection and preparation.

EDIT: I will gladly add that if a wizard was a known-spell caster class, and you hacked out the 50% of spells that never really see any use anyway, you would certainly have the "simplest" full caster IMO.
 

Tales and Chronicles

Jewel of the North, formerly know as vincegetorix
Spell selection and prep isn't that much of a task.
A wizard who pick only the worst spells on its list is still pretty powerful and/or useful. The list of "sure value" spells in 5e is pretty long.

It's pretty hard in 5e to create a spellcaster that can't contribute to anything in any given day.

And once you found a decent all-rounder spell prep, you dont tend to change it much.
 



Remove ads

Top