Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Requesting permission to have something cool
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 9179416" data-attributes="member: 996"><p>The basic idea of complex class has lower floor/higher ceiling, simple class is dead-on effective isn't going to give you caster supremacy, by itself.</p><p></p><p>There's the additional step of insisting that casters must be complex, and non-casters must be simple, so that the ceiling of the former is always higher than the latter. </p><p></p><p>D&D obviously takes that step, and, when it didn't go far enough, attracted a surprising amount of nerdrage.</p><p></p><p>The idea has other issues, though, like low floor/high ceiling <em>sounds </em>fair, if the average lies in about the same plane as the simpler character's consistent performance. Thing is, it might if perfectly designed and measured over the population of all characters of each class, but it probably won't in terms of actual play experience. The floor is mainly going to be experienced by the less skilled player learning that, no, you aren't allowed to play a caster, you must play a Champion. The ceiling is going to be consistently hit - if not exceeded - by system masters.</p><p></p><p>If you do want to make the game more complicated by balancing it around different tiers of class complexity, the balance target should be to give the simple characters solid, viable effectiveness as their floor, and a slightly higher ceiling if played optimally, then give the complex classes basically no floor, just, when misplayed, they die or something, and a design ceiling of viable effectiveness (which would, inevitably, be exceeded by system mastery, since perfect balance is impossible). Thus, players looking for a challenge would pick the complex classes, and those looking for a fun power fantasy, could be directed to the simpler options.</p><p></p><p>D&D in the 80s gave indications of going for that, at least, in the single digit levels.</p><p></p><p>But, absolutely, each broad concept should have both a simple and a complex option, something D&D only flirted with at the very end of 4e. Essentials had already, 2 years in, re-introduced simple martials/complex casters, but, the game could still be played with all prior options, giving both simple & complex martial options - with the introduction, 2 years later, of the Elementalist sorcerer in HotEC, the very last supplement to feature sub-classes, at all, a simple arcane caster option finally existed, as well.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 9179416, member: 996"] The basic idea of complex class has lower floor/higher ceiling, simple class is dead-on effective isn't going to give you caster supremacy, by itself. There's the additional step of insisting that casters must be complex, and non-casters must be simple, so that the ceiling of the former is always higher than the latter. D&D obviously takes that step, and, when it didn't go far enough, attracted a surprising amount of nerdrage. The idea has other issues, though, like low floor/high ceiling [I]sounds [/I]fair, if the average lies in about the same plane as the simpler character's consistent performance. Thing is, it might if perfectly designed and measured over the population of all characters of each class, but it probably won't in terms of actual play experience. The floor is mainly going to be experienced by the less skilled player learning that, no, you aren't allowed to play a caster, you must play a Champion. The ceiling is going to be consistently hit - if not exceeded - by system masters. If you do want to make the game more complicated by balancing it around different tiers of class complexity, the balance target should be to give the simple characters solid, viable effectiveness as their floor, and a slightly higher ceiling if played optimally, then give the complex classes basically no floor, just, when misplayed, they die or something, and a design ceiling of viable effectiveness (which would, inevitably, be exceeded by system mastery, since perfect balance is impossible). Thus, players looking for a challenge would pick the complex classes, and those looking for a fun power fantasy, could be directed to the simpler options. D&D in the 80s gave indications of going for that, at least, in the single digit levels. But, absolutely, each broad concept should have both a simple and a complex option, something D&D only flirted with at the very end of 4e. Essentials had already, 2 years in, re-introduced simple martials/complex casters, but, the game could still be played with all prior options, giving both simple & complex martial options - with the introduction, 2 years later, of the Elementalist sorcerer in HotEC, the very last supplement to feature sub-classes, at all, a simple arcane caster option finally existed, as well. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Requesting permission to have something cool
Top