There should be a way a new player can easily play a spellcaster, but simplifying the whole spellcasting system is not the way to accomplish this. Numerous players like complex spellcasting, and it's not fair to take that option away from them. That being said, I would like at least one class that is a slightly simpler spellcaster so new players can easily play and enjoy it. A good way to have a class like this would be for 1DD to add a new class to the game.
Warlock. Most of the time you just eldritch blast, and otherwise you only have two spell slots for most of your career, and you don’t have to worry about levels. It’s very much a slightly simpler caster.
While these are true, you do have the eldritch invocations and pact boon to also consider.
Yes. But you can pick invocations that don’t require on the fly thinking, but are still useful. I mean everyone takes agonizing blast. Then you throw in things like eyes of the rune keeper or devils sight. Or just layer more effects on to your eldritch blast. And they come on fairly slowly at first, so you have time to figure out the ones you’ve got before you add a new one. And they’re level-gated, so you don’t even need to be sorting through the whole list at low levels. Pact boons also don’t have to be complicated. You can just get a cooler familiar, or a couple more spells. Invocations and boons can just make your existing stuff a little better, rather then adding new stuff. And you only add one spell to the list of what you can cast every time you level, so they come on much more gradually than, say a cleric adding 15 spells every other level. It’s very much a simple caster.
The "pick your spells from this list, but only from these schools" spell selection for arcane trickster and eldritch knight is an enormous pain in the ass, IMO. I am not happy to see it expanded to most casters. I would much rather see spell lists for each class.
The "pick your spells from this list, but only from these schools" spell selection for arcane trickster and eldritch knight is an enormous pain in the ass, IMO. I am not happy to see it expanded to most casters. I would much rather see spell lists for each class.
As much as I like most of the new stuff, I do have to agree with this complaint.
I understand why WotC thinks this is easier for them. I understand that it's a clean way to define classes. But it sure is a pain to actually use. I had to ask for a Bard specific list just to playtest them. Big thanks to BaronRusso for giving me one in an earlier thread.
I'm okay with them planning class spell lists this way. I'm okay with them releasing new ones in the future with just a group identifier (Arcane, Divine, Primal) and a school. We can take it from there. But the PHB really has to have specific spell lists for each class and subclass to make them usable. Even if it's just in an appendix somewhere.
Agree with the "these lists but these schools" is an absolute pain, doubly so now that all casters are preparation casters so players will be swapping spells all the time and making mistakes every time about which spells they can / cannot have. I like simplifying everything down to the three spell lists, but just make it so every class / subclass has access to the entire spell list. I mean why shouldn't I be able to make a Bard that sings "Thunderstruck" and uses Lightning bolt? Or a Disney-Princess Bard that has a rabbit familiar? Just take the approach they've taken with Bard and give each class / subclass their own special list of bonus spells to give them their unique flavour, while reducing the number of free choice spells prepared down to 1 per class level.
Agree with the "these lists but these schools" is an absolute pain, doubly so now that all casters are preparation casters so players will be swapping spells all the time and making mistakes every time about which spells they can / cannot have. I like simplifying everything down to the three spell lists, but just make it so every class / subclass has access to the entire spell list. I mean why shouldn't I be able to make a Bard that sings "Thunderstruck" and uses Lightning bolt? Or a Disney-Princess Bard that has a rabbit familiar? Just take the approach they've taken with Bard and give each class / subclass their own special list of bonus spells to give them their unique flavour, while reducing the number of free choice spells prepared down to 1 per class level.
That's an interesting solution. I could see complaints that it would make every member of the same class seem 'samey.' But it's worth thinking about as one of the ways to tune things.
Here's a simple solution that no one will probably love - combine the two methods. Let players prepare spells each day, but from a smaller list of options. Like 10 choices at level 1, then add 10 more at level 2, etc. Effectively have 20 levels of spells.
Here's a simple solution that no one will probably love - combine the two methods. Let players prepare spells each day, but from a smaller list of options. Like 10 choices at level 1, then add 10 more at level 2, etc. Effectively have 20 levels of spells.
I would also prefer they keep with class-based spell lists. I like the arcane, divine, primal lists for feats and maybe scrolls, but choosing only certain schools for different classes seems very limiting. Worrying about spell schools to me feels like it should be a wizard thing. Other classes, not so much.
More options just widen the gulf between optimizers and non-optimizers which is bad for the game b/c a new player in a party with experienced players will feel useless.
Every rookie in every occupation, sport, or hobby feels useless next to pros. Although usually rookies learn the ropes instead of demanding the professionals to stop being so knowledgeable.
Like the ancient wisdom of Souls community says: GIT GUD SCRUB.
Every rookie in every occupation, sport, or hobby feels useless next to pros. Although usually rookies learn the ropes instead of demanding the professionals to stop being so knowledgeable.Like the ancient wisdom of Souls community says: GIT GUD SCRUB.
Pure gatekeeper BS. I'm ashamed that your toxicity exists in this hobby, and I hope WotC ignore this kind of exclusionary thinking.
The issue you're seeing is that the attitude you are espousing is very much akin to a strange form of Reverser Gatekeeping, i.e. if you're an experienced player who knows the game well and enjoys delving deeper into it, you should be ashamed of yourself and abandon the hobby to be the exclusive purview of Newbies, instead. In your example of an entire table of advanced players arrayed around one Newbie, you called out the advanced players - every single one of them - as being optimizing gatekeepy ******** going out of their way to "Make The new Guy Feel Useless", and wanted the entire game designed to strip away advanced play so that the one rookie at a tableful of old hands doesn't have to feel like a rookie.
That is not okay. It's just as bad as making the game too dense and impenetrable for most rookies to tolerate, except there's no convenient insult like "gatekeeper" to throw at people who want to kick out everybody with a game or two under their belt. That attitude will drive moderate players into the Grognard camp, and we don't need more grognards.
Everybody deserves their cool. The game needs to have enough depth to be appealing to more experienced players as well, or you'll get no player retention. No retention? No game. The grognards are wrong - the game cannot survive without new blood, there's no possible way to replenish the "I'VE BEEN PLAYING SINCE RED BOX YEW WHIPPERSNAPPER" crowd. But the Reverse Grognard is also wrong. You can't just kick out everybody who gets done with their first game so rookies never have to feel like rookies. That will also irrevocably destroy the game.
It's why I argue that a table's role with regards to a newbie is to teach. Not to force a newbie to play Champion fighter as the Designated Noob Character and then just expect them to figure out as they go without any help. The answer to be a rookie at a tableful of old hands is to ask the old hands for help, and for the old hands to gladly give it.
The more I see this conversation, the more convinced I am (and Yurei, I believe you've brought this idea up on at least once before) that Sidekicks should just be repurposed as "beginner classes". Things can only be simplified so much before it just becomes ridiculous. I've argued in favor of more variety and complex options before, and snarkily said spellcasters could be replaced, and all we'd need is for fighters to reflavor their crossbow attacks as "magic" for the sake of simplicity. I'm starting to think maybe that's not so hyperbolic of me after all...
I might get shot for saying this, but I think Wizards was onto something when they made Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster. They never get to the craziness that is 5th level and higher spells and 3rd and 4th level spells are virtually inaccessible to them in many campaigns, they have way fewer spells (which curtails the toolboxing you see in full and even half-casters to an extent), and they still keep the essence of their core class, but also add magic on top of that. And the image of a warrior complementing their martial abilities with magic is a popular one.
The problems with EK and AT are that their spellcasting doesn't complement their martial abilities, it competes and almost always loses that competition. Eldritch knight is particularly obnoxious, because it gets two schools (abjuration and evocation) and the number of evocation spells it's worth casting as an EK is basically zero.
I might get shot for saying this, but I think Wizards was onto something when they made Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster. They never get to the craziness that is 5th level and higher spells and 3rd and 4th level spells are virtually inaccessible to them in many campaigns, they have way fewer spells (which curtails the toolboxing you see in full and even half-casters to an extent), and they still keep the essence of their core class, but also add magic on top of that. And the image of a warrior complementing their martial abilities with magic is a popular one.
The problems with EK and AT are that their spellcasting doesn't complement their martial abilities, it competes and almost always loses that competition. Eldritch knight is particularly obnoxious, because it gets two schools (abjuration and evocation) and the number of evocation spells it's worth casting as an EK is basically zero.
That's fair, but the concept is something that I think shouldn't be abandoned.
I also like the concept of Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster. And I also think the spell limitations were really weird and don't compliment them well. I look forward to their rewrites to see if they fix it.
I might be repeating someone else but I want spells easy to cast because every time a player wants to play a cleric and they have no game experience, I have to basically play for them, so I'm kinda tired of doing that.
I might be repeating someone else but I want spells easy to cast because every time a player wants to play a cleric and they have no game experience, I have to basically play for them, so I'm kinda tired of doing that.
I think the suggested spells per level should be very helpful in this regard. Especially if you have a beginner box with reduced spell selection and spell cards for the novice caster. I don't know that the full rules need to be simplified, but more support for a "beginner league" might go a long way.
I guess the main issue is addressing the conflict between spellcasting and swinging weapons. There has to be a way to mesh the two together without making it broken.
The normal method is to focus on buffs instead of damage. For example, an option I had was:
Swap Evocation for Transmutation.
When you cast a spell that has a casting time of 1 action on yourself and no other targets, you may do so as a bonus action.
While you are concentrating on spell targeting yourself and no other targets, your concentration can’t be broken as a result of taking damage.
If you want a character who's actually slinging fireballs and using swords, you probably need some multiattack type power (for example, just change the War Magic ability to be Improved War Magic, and improved war magic becomes 2 attacks). Or an arcane smite type ability.
I guess the main issue is addressing the conflict between spellcasting and swinging weapons. There has to be a way to mesh the two together without making it broken.
The normal method is to focus on buffs instead of damage. For example, an option I had was:
Swap Evocation for Transmutation.
When you cast a spell that has a casting time of 1 action on yourself and no other targets, you may do so as a bonus action.
While you are concentrating on spell targeting yourself and no other targets, your concentration can’t be broken as a result of taking damage.
If you want a character who's actually slinging fireballs and using swords, you probably need some multiattack type power (for example, just change the War Magic ability to be Improved War Magic, and improved war magic becomes 2 attacks). Or an arcane smite type ability.
I hope that if Eldritch Knight makes a comeback in One D&D, we get to see changes along these lines, because I like how they sound.
Yes, this is along the lines of what they should have been. They aren't going to be a true gish with their spell advancement, and they shouldn't be for just a sublcass. They should have always focused on self buffing in this manner.
I also like the concept of Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster. And I also think the spell limitations were really weird and don't compliment them well. I look forward to their rewrites to see if they fix it.
Half caster progression, prepared spellcasting, features that synergize magic and martial combat better, like charging your sword with a spell and releasing it on a hit. Or at least arcane smite or something.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yes. But you can pick invocations that don’t require on the fly thinking, but are still useful. I mean everyone takes agonizing blast. Then you throw in things like eyes of the rune keeper or devils sight. Or just layer more effects on to your eldritch blast. And they come on fairly slowly at first, so you have time to figure out the ones you’ve got before you add a new one. And they’re level-gated, so you don’t even need to be sorting through the whole list at low levels. Pact boons also don’t have to be complicated. You can just get a cooler familiar, or a couple more spells. Invocations and boons can just make your existing stuff a little better, rather then adding new stuff.
And you only add one spell to the list of what you can cast every time you level, so they come on much more gradually than, say a cleric adding 15 spells every other level.
It’s very much a simple caster.
The "pick your spells from this list, but only from these schools" spell selection for arcane trickster and eldritch knight is an enormous pain in the ass, IMO. I am not happy to see it expanded to most casters. I would much rather see spell lists for each class.
As much as I like most of the new stuff, I do have to agree with this complaint.
I understand why WotC thinks this is easier for them. I understand that it's a clean way to define classes. But it sure is a pain to actually use. I had to ask for a Bard specific list just to playtest them. Big thanks to BaronRusso for giving me one in an earlier thread.
I'm okay with them planning class spell lists this way. I'm okay with them releasing new ones in the future with just a group identifier (Arcane, Divine, Primal) and a school. We can take it from there. But the PHB really has to have specific spell lists for each class and subclass to make them usable. Even if it's just in an appendix somewhere.
Agree with the "these lists but these schools" is an absolute pain, doubly so now that all casters are preparation casters so players will be swapping spells all the time and making mistakes every time about which spells they can / cannot have. I like simplifying everything down to the three spell lists, but just make it so every class / subclass has access to the entire spell list. I mean why shouldn't I be able to make a Bard that sings "Thunderstruck" and uses Lightning bolt? Or a Disney-Princess Bard that has a rabbit familiar? Just take the approach they've taken with Bard and give each class / subclass their own special list of bonus spells to give them their unique flavour, while reducing the number of free choice spells prepared down to 1 per class level.
That's an interesting solution. I could see complaints that it would make every member of the same class seem 'samey.' But it's worth thinking about as one of the ways to tune things.
removed
This sounds kind of like the Wizard's spell book.
Hahaha, great point!
I would also prefer they keep with class-based spell lists. I like the arcane, divine, primal lists for feats and maybe scrolls, but choosing only certain schools for different classes seems very limiting. Worrying about spell schools to me feels like it should be a wizard thing. Other classes, not so much.
Every rookie in every occupation, sport, or hobby feels useless next to pros. Although usually rookies learn the ropes instead of demanding the professionals to stop being so knowledgeable.
Like the ancient wisdom of Souls community says: GIT GUD SCRUB.
Pure gatekeeper BS. I'm ashamed that your toxicity exists in this hobby, and I hope WotC ignore this kind of exclusionary thinking.
Agile?
The issue you're seeing is that the attitude you are espousing is very much akin to a strange form of Reverser Gatekeeping, i.e. if you're an experienced player who knows the game well and enjoys delving deeper into it, you should be ashamed of yourself and abandon the hobby to be the exclusive purview of Newbies, instead. In your example of an entire table of advanced players arrayed around one Newbie, you called out the advanced players - every single one of them - as being optimizing gatekeepy ******** going out of their way to "Make The new Guy Feel Useless", and wanted the entire game designed to strip away advanced play so that the one rookie at a tableful of old hands doesn't have to feel like a rookie.
That is not okay. It's just as bad as making the game too dense and impenetrable for most rookies to tolerate, except there's no convenient insult like "gatekeeper" to throw at people who want to kick out everybody with a game or two under their belt. That attitude will drive moderate players into the Grognard camp, and we don't need more grognards.
Everybody deserves their cool. The game needs to have enough depth to be appealing to more experienced players as well, or you'll get no player retention. No retention? No game. The grognards are wrong - the game cannot survive without new blood, there's no possible way to replenish the "I'VE BEEN PLAYING SINCE RED BOX YEW WHIPPERSNAPPER" crowd. But the Reverse Grognard is also wrong. You can't just kick out everybody who gets done with their first game so rookies never have to feel like rookies. That will also irrevocably destroy the game.
It's why I argue that a table's role with regards to a newbie is to teach. Not to force a newbie to play Champion fighter as the Designated Noob Character and then just expect them to figure out as they go without any help. The answer to be a rookie at a tableful of old hands is to ask the old hands for help, and for the old hands to gladly give it.
Please do not contact or message me.
The more I see this conversation, the more convinced I am (and Yurei, I believe you've brought this idea up on at least once before) that Sidekicks should just be repurposed as "beginner classes". Things can only be simplified so much before it just becomes ridiculous. I've argued in favor of more variety and complex options before, and snarkily said spellcasters could be replaced, and all we'd need is for fighters to reflavor their crossbow attacks as "magic" for the sake of simplicity. I'm starting to think maybe that's not so hyperbolic of me after all...
The problems with EK and AT are that their spellcasting doesn't complement their martial abilities, it competes and almost always loses that competition. Eldritch knight is particularly obnoxious, because it gets two schools (abjuration and evocation) and the number of evocation spells it's worth casting as an EK is basically zero.
I also like the concept of Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster. And I also think the spell limitations were really weird and don't compliment them well. I look forward to their rewrites to see if they fix it.
I might be repeating someone else but I want spells easy to cast because every time a player wants to play a cleric and they have no game experience, I have to basically play for them, so I'm kinda tired of doing that.
I think the suggested spells per level should be very helpful in this regard. Especially if you have a beginner box with reduced spell selection and spell cards for the novice caster. I don't know that the full rules need to be simplified, but more support for a "beginner league" might go a long way.
The normal method is to focus on buffs instead of damage. For example, an option I had was:
If you want a character who's actually slinging fireballs and using swords, you probably need some multiattack type power (for example, just change the War Magic ability to be Improved War Magic, and improved war magic becomes 2 attacks). Or an arcane smite type ability.
Yes, this is along the lines of what they should have been. They aren't going to be a true gish with their spell advancement, and they shouldn't be for just a sublcass. They should have always focused on self buffing in this manner.
Half caster progression, prepared spellcasting, features that synergize magic and martial combat better, like charging your sword with a spell and releasing it on a hit. Or at least arcane smite or something.