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

[Tales and Chronicles]

Anyone who thinks casters are not complicated have speed blindness and need to try and play some actually simple systems.

They are much more complex than even the most complex non-caster.

I don't think anybody is saying some casters are simpler than martial. The question asked is: given the casters are complex, which of them is the simplest to play when compared to other casters.

The (lack of) complexity of non- casters has no relevance here. Of course (sadly), a non-caster is easier to play in D&D.

 

[Ashrym]

I have never delt with a bard thus I do not know

Valor Bards are not complex to play for a caster. Their Bardic Inspiration is still just hand it out, there's no daily swapping to worry about, and they pretty much cast spells or cast spells and attack.

Contrast that to a Glamour Bard who fuels Beguiling Magic with BI and possibly Mantle of Inspiration with 1st level spell slots and Mantle of Majesty with 3rd level slots who is also granting off turn movement and it becomes much more complex.

Depends on the college.

Edit: If the vote is on class I think we should assume the least complex subclass.

 

[ezo]

Anyone who thinks casters are not complicated have speed blindness and need to try and play some actually simple systems.

They are much more complex than even the most complex non-caster.

Umm... did you read my OP or are you just jumping on at post 100+?

They are much more complex than even the most complex non-caster.

Yeah, I would hardcore disagree with this statement anyway. There are certainly non-casters in 5E which challenge players to play well compare to some of the full casters IME. YMMV, of course.

 

[Clint_L]

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.

None of that is how a new player sees wizards.

They don't know anything about wizards being seen as more versatile. They see a class that casts spells, like Harry Potter or Gandalf, they see some obvious spell options, and they actually don't have that many choices to make on their turns at low levels - basically whether to cast firebolt (which almost all of them take) or use a spell slot on something like ice knife or sleep (which is a confusing spell for new players, BTW).

I have a lot of experience with brand new players specifically. Wizards is overwhelmingly the spellcasting class of choice, and the one that requires the least hand holding. Probably because they all know Harry Potter.

Sorcerers are really hard for new players because spending sorcery points adds another decision, but also a decision that requires a conceptual understanding of a bunch of different factors. I've had players choose sorcerer and never spend a single sorcery point (though, to be fair, this probably does make them the simplest spellcaster).

Warlocks are not an intuitive concept the way wizards are, but more significantly, building one requires understanding eldritch invocations. And understanding eldritch invocations requires a lot more knowledge of how D&D works than a newbie comes in with. When one wants to play a warlock, I basically have to build their character for them.

Clerics are a bit more conceptually challenging than wizards and add the channel divinity aspect to deal with, plus are more likely to be using bonus actions in general. So that makes them a touch harder for beginners than wizards. Bonus actions are a pain in the butt with new players.

Bards are similar to Clerics in working more off the bonus action and, again, not being as conceptually straightforward as wizards (I note that even the D&D movie treated a bard as just a musical rogue rather than a primary spellcaster).

Edit: I should stipulate that, as much as possible, I strive to avoid telling players, even brand new ones, how they should play their character. That is why the student coming in with their own conceptual understanding of a class makes it much easier. Wizards have a spell book and casts spells that they've learned. Almost every kid gets it, right away. If they're making a warlock, we have to have a long conversation about the longer term impact of their Dark Pact, what it means to have a patron, what the potential patron options are, how eldritch invocations interact with other aspects of their game, why eldritch blast is essential, and so on.

 

[ezo]

None of that is how a new player sees wizards.

They don't know anything about wizards being seen as more versatile. They see a class that casts spells, like Harry Potter or Gandalf, they see some obvious spell options, and they actually don't have that many choices to make on their turns at low levels - basically whether to cast firebolt (which almost all of them take) or use a spell slot on something like ice knife or sleep (which is a confusing spell for new players, BTW).

I have a lot of experience with brand new players specifically. Wizards is overwhelmingly the spellcasting class of choice, and the one that requires the least hand holding. Probably because they all know Harry Potter.

What they think of as a wizard and expect and what they actually get from 5E are very different experience, though, aren't they?

Especially at creation where you have to comb through 40+ spells (not counting cantrips!) that wizards have access to. Do you find yourself hand-holding at this stage? I understand you work with younger kids IIRC??

 

[Zardnaar]

Druid I get. Wildshape is an extremely complex subsystem.

I’m not sure what makes Wizard more complex than say a bard? To either create or play?

Bards not to complex but I would put it wizard over it for simplicity.

Warlocks simple for a newbie if an experienced player builds/suggests it and they're willing to listen.i have encountered the role pkay8nh don't tell ne what to do warlocks who had 0 attack cantrips or a crap one.

 

[Zardnaar]

What they think of as a wizard and expect and what they actually get from 5E are very different experience, though, aren't they?

Especially at creation where you have to comb through 40+ spells (not counting cantrips!) that wizards have access to. Do you find yourself hand-holding at this stage? I understand you work with younger kids IIRC??

Depends if they have help or are using the preconstructed wizards in one of the starter set.

Recently seen a 13 year old complete newbie pilot the cleric in DoSI well. WotC made a decent build as well. Not how we would do it but it didn't suck. Lacked guidance and 8 dex in heavy armor.

 

[Clint_L]

What they think of as a wizard and expect and what they actually get from 5E are very different experience, though, aren't they?

Especially at creation where you have to comb through 40+ spells (not counting cantrips!) that wizards have access to. Do you find yourself hand-holding at this stage? I understand you work with younger kids IIRC??

They don't really comb through the spells that much, though. What they do is see the ones that look simple and obvious, and they ask a friend or me. I try not to tell them what they should take, though, and just encourage them to go with what sounds fun. So they almost always take firebolt, for example, I think because the name alone just sounds like a thing a wizard would do. Lots take sleep because it sounds simple and obvious, though the first few times they cast it is usually a PITA.

And then there's how to role-play a character. Most newbies come in with a good idea of what a wizard is because, again, Harry Potter, Gandalf, and so on. Most don't come in with a clear concept of a cleric, bard, or warlock; if they pick sorcerer it's generally as a synonym for wizard and they play it exactly like a wizard, totally ignoring sorcery points at first (last year, one went the entire campaign, up to level 5, without once using a sorcery point).

I have years of experience teaching D&D to new players. Some come in with a broad understanding of RPGs, often from video games, and have maybe talked D&D with friends or been exposed to it a little bit. Some, like me back in the day, just click with it immediately and start voraciously learning everything they can about it. And a lot are there because they are trying to make friends, or a parent has suggested that they try it, or even enrolled them in the camp without asking them, or because their friend wanted to play and they are tagging along.

I think most of the folks who are passionate enough about TTRPGs to post on this forum are very much coming from the subset of folks that I came from: the ones for who D&D (probably) was like a lightning bolt, a revelation. And so I think we have a tendency underestimate how challenging it is for a lot of brains that don't work like ours.

I see a similar problem in the school system: most teachers are people who were good at school, and we do a great job teaching the kids who are good at school. Of course we do: schools are built in our image and reward brains like ours. The challenge is to make school work for other kinds of thinkers, and we often fail them.

Well, D&D was originally built in the image of its creators, and for minds that worked a lot like theirs. And this has been reflected in decades of how it is written and presented. To be blunt: it has always been a terribly written game if the purpose is to make it more accessible. The latest edition (5e) is by far the best written it that sense, and the 2024 rules are a massive improvement over the 2014 ones. But there is still a ton of complexity that I think we tend to underestimate, and that becomes very apparent when you are teaching the game to players that lack almost any context for it.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

Umm... did you read my OP or are you just jumping on at post 100+?

Yeah, I would hardcore disagree with this statement anyway. There are certainly non-casters in 5E which challenge players to play well compare to some of the full casters IME. YMMV, of course.

I was mainly responding to the comment just before mine.

I'd say there are two ways of looking at complexity, with a slight caveat. Complexity of build, and complexity of play. Some classes also allow you to home in on optimal play easier since they don't depend on fixed features. A badly built (within reason) wizard is easier to fix than a badly built champion, for example.

 

[ezo]

I was mainly responding to the comment just before mine.

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

I'd say there are two ways of looking at complexity, with a slight caveat. Complexity of build, and complexity of play. Some classes also allow you to home in on optimal play easier since they don't depend on fixed features. A badly built (within reason) wizard is easier to fix than a badly built champion, for example.

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.

So, your blanket statment...

They [Wizards] are much more complex than even the most complex non-caster.

...is not something I can agree with.