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

[EzekielRaiden]

Sorcerer.

Everyone who said warlock is wrong. It's a very complex class that's only simple if you know what you're doing. It's very easy to cock it up and miss taking Eldritch blast if you're new.

A lot of moving parts. Sorcerers more self contained but you would almost have to go out if your way to mess it up.

The problem with Sorcerer is, ironically, precisely the opposite of the problem with the Wizard, and why my vote will always be "Cleric is the simplest, but no full spellcaster is simple."

The Wizard's problem is that it has this ENORMOUS toolbox, but a crapload of those tools are just...not very good a lot of the time. So it requires extensive charop knowledge in order to reach its maximum potential. But, ironically, once you have a basic knowledge of what spells are Generally Great (and there really is a shortlist of Generally Great spells available to Wizards), the Wizard is actually a pretty blunt instrument: Cast More Spells.

The Sorcerer's problem is that it has a MICROSCOPIC toolbox, but a crapload of ways to tweak and fiddle. This also requires extensive charop knowledge, not because you need to know how to maximally leverage the vast arcane estate at your command, but because you need to guarantee that the minuscule pool of spells you can draw on will definitely be useful all day, ideally in ways that play nicely with your metamagic options. Those very metamagic options also pull the Sorcerer sharply away from simplicity for the same reason Invocations pull the Warlock away from simplicity: anything that lets you rewrite the very spells you're working with is necessarily a complexity booster, because now any given spell isn't one spell, it's two to five.

Cleric averts both ends of this. It has a moderately-sized spell list, slightly smaller than the potential list of Sorcerer, but importantly, you have access to absolutely all of it (up to your highest slot, natch) at the start of any given day. You don't have any fancy tricks you can pull with those spells, no opt-in features which rewrite them, no need to survey the field to ensure you're picking the clever (=Wizard) or guaranteed-useful (=Warlock/Sorcerer) options. And, because the divine list is IMO rather better curated than either Sorcerer or Wizard (Warlock is also better, but too complex for other reasons), it's usually not that hard to pick one good support spell per level, one good offense spell per level, and whatever else tickles one's fancy until you hit your limit.

 

[Horwath]

If you know how to put it togather.

We're all very experienced D&Ders here. Newbies generally do alright with sorcerers.

I've seen a few screw up Druids, wizards, and especially warlocks (as in they don't take Eldritch Blast).

Should probably specify dragon sorcerer. 2024 they pretty much give you the required stuff. Even newbies can figure out picking spells of the appropriate element.

that is why you help new players and if there are whole new group of players, they have to learn it somehow.
and there is always an option to change features after few sessions when you learn some things.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

EB with AB, Pact of the blade+improved pact of the blade+extra blade attack+smite+more blade attacks+more damage on blade attacks...
yeah sounds really complicated.

Now, you can do it very complicated and you can do it on a Fighter-champion level.

Simply by having to build it yourself, rather than being told "you get X at level N, and Y at level M, and Z at level L", automatically steps up the complexity very significantly.

We are comfortable with this stuff because we are far more plugged in for D&D. You've already described having to take seven different individual choices: eldritch blast, Agonizing Blast, Pact of the Blade, Thirsting Blade (that's the extra attack), Eldritch Smite, Devouring Blade, and whatever spell you're using to power up said blade. Not to mention the other foundational choices (e.g. pumping Cha).

By comparison, the Cleric is simply straight-up less hunting around. None of these things is simple, but the Warlock absolutely is not "the simple caster."

that is why you help new players and if there are whole new group of players, they have to learn it somehow.
and there is always an option to change features after few sessions when you learn some things.

"It's not complex because someone else can already learn it and thus teach it to people who don't know" is not an effective argument. It is, in fact, an admission that something is too complex to be learned easily on its own. There's a named D&D-related fallacy along the same lines, but people get tetchy when you invoke it.

 

[Horwath]

Simply by having to build it yourself, rather than being told "you get X at level N, and Y at level M, and Z at level L", automatically steps up the complexity very significantly.

We are comfortable with this stuff because we are far more plugged in for D&D. You've already described having to take seven different individual choices: eldritch blast, Agonizing Blast, Pact of the Blade, Thirsting Blade (that's the extra attack), Eldritch Smite, Devouring Blade, and whatever spell you're using to power up said blade. Not to mention the other foundational choices (e.g. pumping Cha).

by that thinking you can make a bad fighter with picking wrong feats and boosting Int instead of STR or DEX.

there is nothing wrong in making a bad character, you'll learn and next one will be better.

By comparison, the Cleric is simply straight-up less hunting around. None of these things is simple, but the Warlock absolutely is not "the simple caster."


"It's not complex because someone else can already learn it and thus teach it to people who don't know" is not an effective argument. It is, in fact, an admission that something is too complex to be learned easily on its own. There's a named D&D-related fallacy along the same lines, but people get tetchy when you invoke it.

do we need simple D&D or we just let people learn, in whatever way, and make better characters later on.

When you play a new boardgame for the 1st time, do you know everything or you completely suck for a few games?

everything has a learning curve.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

by that thinking you can make a bad fighter with picking wrong feats and boosting Int instead of STR or DEX.

there is nothing wrong in making a bad character, you'll learn and next one will be better.

do we need simple D&D or we just let people learn, in whatever way, and make better characters later on.

When you play a new boardgame for the 1st time, do you know everything or you completely suck for a few games?

everything has a learning curve.

We do not need "simple D&D", that is, something where absolutely everything is trivially easy.

We do, however, benefit immensely from having at least one option of various kinds that is, in fact, dirt-simple basic and obvious.

That's why, even though I hate the specific implementation, I don't actually hate the idea of a Champion subclass for Fighter. It's good to have accessible, approachable options that don't require a lot of forethought and foreknowledge. Games are better when they offer BOTH easy, accessible classes AND complex classes that reward mastery.

There is no actually simple caster. An actually simple caster would be of comparable complexity to a Champion Fighter. No such thing even remotely exists in 5e. Previous editions have actually offered such things (at the very least, the 4e Elementalist--admittedly, a latecomer, but not decade-plus late!) 5e could have as well. It has not, and at this point, it will not if it hasn't done so already.

Stop making this a false dilemma between "absolutely everything is dirt-simple" and "absolutely no spellcaster is dirt-simple." There are many other options, and one of them is to have at least one spellcasting class that is really simple and straightforward.

The "D&D Next" playtest Sorcerer possibly could've been this. Center its mechanics on the Soul of magic you have, so Dragon is a tanky bruiser mage, Shadow is a sneaky lurker mage, Storm is a volatile speedster mage, etc., etc. No slots, minimal prep, possibly even a fixed spell list per Soul source (or fixed + a couple flex options?)--the Champion of spellcasters, as noted. But of course, that wasn't traditional (meaning, it wasn't 3.x), so it got drummed out after only a single packet, never to get even the slightest bit of iteration.

 

[Horwath]

We do not need "simple D&D", that is, something where absolutely everything is trivially easy.

We do, however, benefit immensely from having at least one option of various kinds that is, in fact, dirt-simple basic and obvious.

That's why, even though I hate the specific implementation, I don't actually hate the idea of a Champion subclass for Fighter. It's good to have accessible, approachable options that don't require a lot of forethought and foreknowledge. Games are better when they offer BOTH easy, accessible classes AND complex classes that reward mastery.

There is no actually simple caster. An actually simple caster would be of comparable complexity to a Champion Fighter. No such thing even remotely exists in 5e. Previous editions have actually offered such things (at the very least, the 4e Elementalist--admittedly, a latecomer, but not decade-plus late!) 5e could have as well. It has not, and at this point, it will not if it hasn't done so already.

I agree that it can be somewhat simple options.

and honestly Champion should have been barbarian subclass and barbarian the simple class with one ability: Rage.

and fighter should have had battlemaster as core class feature.

3.5e warlock was a simple "caster" if that could have even be called a caster.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I agree that it can be somewhat simple options.

and honestly Champion should have been barbarian subclass and barbarian the simple class with one ability: Rage.

and fighter should have had battlemaster as core class feature.

3.5e warlock was a simple "caster" if that could have even be called a caster.

I don't personally think even the 3.5e Warlock was actually simple.

As noted, the 4e Elementalist was simple. You make all of one choice for the first like...8 levels? What element you are a bender master of. Not counting feats, of course, but even those wouldn't be THAT important.

The Elementalist was doubly simple because guess what its secondary stat was, the one that gave it better defenses and side-effects from its magic? Constitution. So it's a Cha/Con subclass with very straightforward abilities that are still magical in nature and that can (explicitly!) be used in creative off-label ways. It got good social skills and decent exploration skills (especially since Endurance was a skill in 4e, and based on Con, so the Elementalist actually could fill a pretty solid, if straightforward, niche in the skills department, alongside other exploration-y skills like Dungeoneering, Nature, and Athletics.)

 

[Minigiant]

Which full casting class is the simple caster?​

None

Which full casting class is the simplest overall?​

Warlock

 

[TiQuinn]

Melee attacks? Spam Eldritch Blast? Summon creatures to fight for them? (answer key: yes, yes, yes)

There’s also no wrong answer and the new player is going to have fun with all of it.

Having only 2 spell slots is so restrictive and overly punishing if you casually waste a spell slot, if you are new to the game this is really difficult to deal with.

Generally, new players are going to pick the spells exclusive to the warlock like Eldritch Blast, Hex, Armor of Agathys, etc. Maybe they end up picking something like Witch Bolt and it’s not as optimal for a warlock but I’ve yet to see someone pick a bad spell.

 

[GrimCo]

3.5 Warlock was simple. Limited amount of invocations (12 max at lv 20, but in the 3.x sweet spot, lvs 4-8, you have 3-5 invocations) and Eldrich Blast as spell like ability that scales similar to Sneak Attack. Everything else Warlock gets is passive (damage reduction, energy resistance, take 10 on UMD check), at will (detect magic) or 1/day (fast healing). Since EB is central ability, invocations that modify it are no brainer. Once you pick them, you spam it. But usually, you just spam EB:

It's straight up blaster "caster". 3.x warlock doesn't get actual spell slots and spells.