Forked Thread: Should complexity vary across classes?

Also the complexity of the fighter, only stems from figuring out which options (feats for the most part) are garbage. Once you have that sorted out actual play is quick. Your turn will never approach the decision tree and/or the time element of a wizard, druid or cleric.

Not just that. I must also find out which feats synergize well with one another. 3e appeared to reward overwhelming specialization in a single role, which means that it tends to be better to focus in a single area, rather than spread yourself out over multiple paths. So right from the very start, you should ideally have already mapped out what you want to do from 1st lv all the way to 20th lv, and stick to it rigidly. Because your class features (ie: feats) are front-loaded, screwing up your initial allotment of feats is tantamount to blowing up your entire fighter career.

That is the trickiest part to playing a fighter, IMO. You face the problem of failing as a fighter(or at least, the fighter you envisioned yourself to be) even before the campaign can even begin!

One such example is the "Jack be Quick" fighter build from the CO boards at gleemax, which basically involves a complicated (and some say, questionable) interaction amongst multiple feats to essentially give you 6 attacks for every 1 attack the enemy makes at you.

I agree somewhat with the assessment about spellcasters requiring a great deal of system mastery as well (in that you need an intimate knowledge of how best to use the various spells), but that is something you can explore during the actual game itself, so as pointed out, the downside to preparing wrong spells is not necessarily as bad as a fighter who has chosen the wrong feats. So the burden of "system mastery" on the wizard is arguably less.

Ahh...that sounds a little lame. May revise my post later after I have gotten some sleep.:o
 

log in or register to remove this ad

The problem is that "more mechanicaly complex" usually translates into "many more options" (especially once you grasp the complexity) and that invariably translates to "better." It's hard to accept the person next to you not only taking up more time (thereby eating into yours) but also being more effective than you.

I'd like to point out that 4E introduced a slight way around this. Consider a fighter hitting something. In addition to damage that something is marked. That means when the DM takes his turn he will likely try to have that monster attack the fighter. The fighter has affected the combat and he didn't even have to try.

This is why 4E gives the players the ability to inflict so many badstats, including marking. You can do something simple while making somebody else's decision more complex.
 

I think that might be partially because you can "rebuild" your Wizard every day. Each day, you can select a different sets of spells to prepare.

That got me thinking...

There are only three classes with "unlimited" options in 3e: cleric, druid, and wizard. What a coincidence they are considered the most "broken" or "abusive" classes in 3e as well...

Compare them with their three "spontaneous" cousins: favored soul, bard and sorcerer. Each loses handily. No favored soul can match the sheer "yes I can!" power of a fully-prepared cleric (which grows quadratically with each supplement littering the clerics "I know that" list). and no sorcerer can solve the myriad of problems a wizard with a loaded spellbook can (which most wizards have good spellbooks come 7th level, they have the gold to invest in research or purchasing scrolls by then). An no bard, jack-of-all-trades be damned, can match the druids "I can heal, I can nuke, I can maul you as a bear" power.

A lot of complaints about sorcerers (and other spontaneous casters) was levied at them being "too weak". I think they were probably balanced against other classes (like fighters or rogues, who are flexible at char-gen, but set during play) but not against prep-casters, who could rebuild themselves to suit whatever problem came along, given 24 hours advance warning.

What 4e did was effectively turn clerics and wizards into favored-souls and sorcerers. You have limited choices (picked at char-gen) but near-constant ability to use them. (With the added side-benefit of turning many problem-solver spells into rituals, which are castable as long as you have gold to pay).

I never got to try this out, but I'm sure many, if not all, problems with casters overshadowing other characters could be fixed with replacing them with spontaneous-only counterparts. In essence, by limiting clerics, druids and wizards to 45-55 spells max (0-9th level) you could remove a lot of potential problems.

Problem being, I think most dedicated spellcaster-type players with chafe, if not outright revolt, at the idea of wizards and clerics being knocked down a peg or three.
 

I agree somewhat with the assessment about spellcasters requiring a great deal of system mastery as well (in that you need an intimate knowledge of how best to use the various spells), but that is something you can explore during the actual game itself, so as pointed out, the downside to preparing wrong spells is not necessarily as bad as a fighter who has chosen the wrong feats. So the burden of "system mastery" on the wizard is arguably less.

But probably equally bad (if not worse) would be a sorcerer with bad spell selection (shocking grasp vs. magic missile) or a rogue with poor skill choices (high ranks in forgery, low in disable device, etc).

Both of those classes (and those similar) have important tactical choices done AT CHAR-GEN. Wizards and clerics get a pass because if you find a spell lacking, you can easily replace it the next day. Barring PHB2 retraining rules and a sorcerer's Once-every-three-levels spell swap, a fighter with a bad feat, a rogue with poor skill allotment or a sorcerer with a poor spell choice is stuck.
 

Problem being, I think most dedicated spellcaster-type players with chafe, if not outright revolt, at the idea of wizards and clerics being knocked down a peg or three.

4e did this, so obviously the designers were of the same mind. I've always wondered what % of people who dislike 4e were those that really liked the open ended wizards, clerics and druids. My gut feeling is it's a pretty high number.
 


4e did this, so obviously the designers were of the same mind. I've always wondered what % of people who dislike 4e were those that really liked the open ended wizards, clerics and druids. My gut feeling is it's a pretty high number.

I am not sure if I am one of those. The aforementioned casters were not the only ones with access to virtually unlimited options. Just about every class had lots of room for customization because of the myriad of feats/alternate class features/prcs etc available. Even melee classes like fighters.

The best example is the warblade, IMO. It can be as straightforward or as complex as you want it to be. If you are a beginner, simply play warblade1-20, invest in str, con and a little int, take damage-oriented maneuvers and go to town. You can't suck. Alternatively, for the challenge, you can consider how warblade interacts with other classes (because of the interesting manner in which IL scales), which leads to almost unlimited combinations. The choice is yours to make, not decided for you by the designers.

4e revolved around restricting what you could do in the name of providing a balanced playing field. Except now, you ended up with really just 1 way of playing.

To me, dnd is all about options. Tons and tons of them. 4e may well be fun, but I feel that it is not what makes dnd well, dnd.:(
 


I am not sure if I am one of those. The aforementioned casters were not the only ones with access to virtually unlimited options. Just about every class had lots of room for customization because of the myriad of feats/alternate class features/prcs etc available. Even melee classes like fighters.

The best example is the warblade, IMO. It can be as straightforward or as complex as you want it to be. If you are a beginner, simply play warblade1-20, invest in str, con and a little int, take damage-oriented maneuvers and go to town. You can't suck. Alternatively, for the challenge, you can consider how warblade interacts with other classes (because of the interesting manner in which IL scales), which leads to almost unlimited combinations. The choice is yours to make, not decided for you by the designers.

4e revolved around restricting what you could do in the name of providing a balanced playing field. Except now, you ended up with really just 1 way of playing.

To me, dnd is all about options. Tons and tons of them. 4e may well be fun, but I feel that it is not what makes dnd well, dnd.:(

The warblade is an interesting example:

1) the warblade (and other Bo9s classes) expressely make fighters more like spellcasters - the 4e approach.

2) per WoTC the warblade is an early attempt at a 4e class.

3) Per my own table: playing the Bo9s classes before transitioning to 4e makes for a really easy transition.

So if you like the warblade to represent the fighter (which I happen too) the 4e fighter is likely a much better fit for you than the 3e fighter.

As far as your options comment - 3e spellcasters have options, tons and tons of options. 3e non-casters even with massive splatbooks have much more limited options (as far as no-suckitude) until you get to Bo9s and the like - which again is more inline with 4e.
 


Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top