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

[Vaalingrade]

...is not something I can agree with.

Why? Is infinite interchangeable class features somehow less complex than 'hit stuff' 'hit stuff twice' and 'take an actual short rest'?

 

[Ashrym]

But when you have subclasses like Battlemaster, with over a dozen maneuvers to choose from, and managing superiority dice, I think you can easily have a non-caster who is more complex than a caster, particularly at lower levels.

Especially when we start applying Weapon Mastery and possibly the bonus feat mixed in the maneuvers.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Maybe Battlemaster could approach somewhere withing the Wizard's gravity well if they have dozens and dozens of maneuvers, got to learn a new one whenever they beat up another Battlemaster and almost every level, and got to switch every day.

 

[ezo]

Why? Is infinite interchangeable class features somehow less complex than 'hit stuff' 'hit stuff twice' and 'take an actual short rest'?

My comment about Battlemasters explains it. If you don't agree, fine, but I'm not going to explain my opinion further when I doubt it will have any impact on your own views.

Especially when we start applying Weapon Mastery and possibly the bonus feat mixed in the maneuvers.

This would make it even worse, truly.

 

[ECMO3]

Maybe Battlemaster could approach somewhere withing the Wizard's gravity well if they have dozens and dozens of maneuvers, got to learn a new one whenever they beat up another Battlemaster and almost every level, and got to switch every day.

Well yeah probably, but then they would rival casters in terms of power and versatility and we don't want that. The Fighter has its place, and Battlemaster is a Fighter subclass.

Not to mention if you make the Battlemaster more powerful he might not want to carry the Wizard's spellbooks any more.

 

[ezo]

Well yeah probably, but then they would be rival Wizards in terms of power and versatility and we don't want that. The Fighter has its place, and Battlemaster is a Fighter subclass.

Yeah, can we please not get into this stuff again?

Thank you.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

Fair enough, but I still don't even see anything in the post above yours tha relates to your post.

Sure. I think those are great ways of looking at it. But when you have subclasses like Battlemaster, with over a dozen maneuvers to choose from, and managing superiority dice, I think you can easily have a non-caster who is more complex than a caster, particularly at lower levels.

I disagree and agree. I believe that mechanically, the battle master is rather trivial. Not as trivial as the champion, but it is still a trivial class. I also believe it is rather straight forward to build since anyone who is completely new to D&D will still understand that the point of the class is ultimately to smash face.

Someone else (Clint_L?) mentioned that he believes the sorcerer is more complex than the wizard (something I disagree with), and I believe his point is related to what I am trying to say here. The wizard is a more "obvious" class because everyone knows why you would play a wizard: to cast spells. But D&D complicates this by then adding a sorcerer and forcing new players to question what the point is of having another caster class? Why pick sorcerer when the wizard exists?

I agree that att lower levels the battle master might be equal to a caster in complexity, but the I think the caster overtakes that lead in just a few levels.

 

[Ashrym]

I'm thinking a Battlemaster with 5 Weapon Mastery choices, 9 Maneuvers, Tactical Master, and 3+ attacks every turn to apply them plus deciding to use a free d8 vs spending a d10 and the option to swap weapons while attacking has become plenty complex in daily gameplay.

 

[Zardnaar]

Why? Is infinite interchangeable class features somehow less complex than 'hit stuff' 'hit stuff twice' and 'take an actual short rest'?

It's the formatting. I have players who don't mind reading spells. Battlemaster and Monks go over their heads.

Very recent example. Wife loved Battlemaster in BG3. She was helping out new player her 1st 5E game. New player picked a Rogue in C&C.

This game she wanted to hit things hard with a stick. She was looking and champion and comparing it to battlemaster.

Wife called me over asked for recommendations. Quick glance more or less the same as BG3. So she took the prone one, riposte and disarm. Married to pole arm master.

That's my duck to water newbie. The others kid sid really well with preconstructed cleric, his dad is figuring out a lightning sorcerer. I buffed it for him some extra spells. His choice to use the 2024 one.

 

[Neonchameleon]

There are two different answers based on whether you're looking at at creation/level up or in play.

At creation it's probably the cleric. You cast spells and if you don't know what to do you heal or hit people. And it's basically it's impossible to mess up making a cleric unless you dump wisdom. And they are flexible in play because of a variety of magic, and if you don't like what you've done you can just prepare a different set of spells - but most just go with a static spell loadout and are fine with that.

In play it's easily the warlock. You only have two resource pools for the magic; magic you can always cast (which can be some pretty impressive stuff like Invisibility) and magic you have a shared two slots for. There's no need to worry about upcasting or even metamagic (although not worrying about upcasting makes the levelling up process harder because you should sort that out at level up). You don't have so many spells as everyone else (one of IMO the few missteps in the 2024 update that isn't about zones) and you don't have to check which pool the spells come out of.