D&D 5E 08/05/2013 - Legends & Lore : Scaling Complexity

[Raith5]

Well to be honest, this is just semantics, and missing the issue of complexity.

There seems to be the (incorrect) belief that character creation is the area that requires reduction in choice to constrain complexity. I don't just mean creating characters at the initial levels, but also those choice points at leveling.

But, as @Chris_Nightwing and others have pointed out, the real complexity in the game is the multiple sub-systems and number of choices "in the round" that is the real complexity in the game.

I'm concerned that not enough attention is given to in round complexity and balancing that against monsters. Right now its hard to judge as the monster math is in general very poor

I think you hit the nail on the head. I find character creation really strange. For some reason I find the way WOTC arranges simplicity of classes more complicated than 4th ed. I am not sure that apprentice tier, builds with very different complexities - are great way to arrange/modularise complexity. Sure 4th ed was on rails in this respect and not flexible but at least there was only one starting point.

In round complexity needs a lot of work to show how monsters and PCs can have capabilities of 4th ed style play dropped into the basic game.

 

[I'm A Banana]

See, I disagree. As it stands, "Gladiator" is "Maneuver Based Fighter". That's currently what Gladiator means in 5e.

Yeah, but that's pretty staggeringly inauthentic. There's nothing about either thing that requires that these be equivalent.

Like I said before, no matter what they choose, someone's going to be picking nits. So, we're basically faced with completely bland and neutral names like "Fighting Man" or actually giving the class a flavourful name and then telling people that the names, while they have real world connotations, are not necessarily specifically that thing.

I'm cool with evocative names as long as the people who are attracted to those evocative names aren't forced into a certain mechanical mold. Some newbie who likes the idea of playing Spartacus shouldn't have to dive deep into the fiddly complexity of the current Gladiator.

I mean, we accept paladin as a generic "holy warrior" archetype, despite it having very specific meanings. Or Druid. Or Cleric or any number of other classes. Even "Rogue" as a class doesn't have to have anything to do with the dictionary definition of a rogue. Why do we have to ensure that every name is so stripped of connotation that people won't complain?

OR, make sure that people attracted to the connotation aren't thwarted by a particular choice of mechanics. There's two possible options here.

This was part of the strength of 4e themes. ANYONE could be a gladiator, and get gladiator-specific powers, and you could be a wizard or a warrior because it wasn't linked to your class, which makes sense for a concept that broad.

The names matter. It's not just a nit to pick, it's how people are going to perceive the possibilities and expectations of the game.

 

[Klaus]

Yeah, but that's pretty staggeringly inauthentic. There's nothing about either thing that requires that these be equivalent.



I'm cool with evocative names as long as the people who are attracted to those evocative names aren't forced into a certain mechanical mold. Some newbie who likes the idea of playing Spartacus shouldn't have to dive deep into the fiddly complexity of the current Gladiator.



OR, make sure that people attracted to the connotation aren't thwarted by a particular choice of mechanics. There's two possible options here.

This was part of the strength of 4e themes. ANYONE could be a gladiator, and get gladiator-specific powers, and you could be a wizard or a warrior because it wasn't linked to your class, which makes sense for a concept that broad.

The names matter. It's not just a nit to pick, it's how people are going to perceive the possibilities and expectations of the game.

None of the powers of the Gladiator are particularly "gladiatorial" (well, maybe Brutal Display). They're more akin to a Strategist's bag of maneuvers, while the Warrior could inherit 4e's Weaponmaster name. The Knight could easily be the Defender, or mix it up and be the Knight-Protector (incidentally, a 3.0 prestige class).

 

[I'm A Banana]

None of the powers of the Gladiator are particularly "gladiatorial" (well, maybe Brutal Display).

Sounds like a point for "don't call this a Gladiator."

They're more akin to a Strategist's bag of maneuvers, while the Warrior could inherit 4e's Weaponmaster name. The Knight could easily be the Defender, or mix it up and be the Knight-Protector (incidentally, a 3.0 prestige class).

Strategist, Weaponmaster, and Defender are all pretty suitably generic. They give a more clear indication that these are things a Fighter can do, without the indication of "this is what Archetype X looks like!", since none of these are really strong archetypes like a Gladiator or a Knight is.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The "refluff" argument isn't exactly persuasive -- those names have power, and they don't necessarily imply a complexity. Either don't call it a gladiator, or ensure that anyone who wants to play a "gladiator" will be OK with playing that.

Dude... weren't you the one arguing the exact opposite position when I brought this up a couple months ago?!?

When we heard that the sub-classes were going to be "jobs" (like Gladiator or Knight)... I said that it was a stupid idea, because there was no absolutely reason to attribute a specific character concept to a bunch of mechanics. Generic identification of the mechanic package was important so that you could make it whatever type of "job" you wanted. And you were all "No, no, no... having this kind of fluff is important!" And we argued the point for the days.

And now that you've seen how it turned out, you realize I was right. Now that the mechanics don't match your idea of what a gladiator should be... you want to strip the fluff from it. Pick a side dude.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Strategist, Weaponmaster, and Defender are all pretty suitably generic. They give a more clear indication that these are things a Fighter can do, without the indication of "this is what Archetype X looks like!", since none of these are really strong archetypes like a Gladiator or a Knight is.

Where were all these opinions a couple months ago when you said Gladiator, Samurai, and Knight were worthwhile ways to identify the Fighter subclasses?

 

[I'm A Banana]

Where were all these opinions a couple months ago when you said Gladiator, Samurai, and Knight were worthwhile ways to identify the Fighter subclasses?

They are worthwhile, but if and only if they are also flexible so as to apply to different playstyles and have some meaning.

So, like I keep saying, there are two possible solutions to the problem of equating the maneuver fighter with the gladiator. One of those fixes is Klaus's idea of making the name more generic.

The OTHER fix is to make the mechanics less so, so that there isn't an assumed level of complexity for something called a "Gladiator."

Gladiator is fine as a fighter distinction, but if that's what you want as a fighter distinction, these mechanics don't match it. These mechanics are ALSO fine as a fighter distinction, but if that's what you want as a fighter distinction, the title doesn't match it. If you want an evocative title, lets get some flexible mechanics underpinning it. If you just want a mechanical distinction, lets not trick people into believing that all members of the archetype have to meet that mechanical distinction.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

They are worthwhile, but if and only if they are also flexible so as to apply to different playstyles and have some meaning.

So, like I keep saying, there are two possible solutions to the problem of equating the maneuver fighter with the gladiator. One of those fixes is Klaus's idea of making the name more generic.

The OTHER fix is to make the mechanics less so, so that there isn't an assumed level of complexity for something called a "Gladiator."

Gladiator is fine as a fighter distinction, but if that's what you want as a fighter distinction, these mechanics don't match it. These mechanics are ALSO fine as a fighter distinction, but if that's what you want as a fighter distinction, the title doesn't match it. If you want an evocative title, lets get some flexible mechanics underpinning it. If you just want a mechanical distinction, lets not trick people into believing that all members of the archetype have to meet that mechanical distinction.

In other words, either go generic or go flavorful, but whatever you do, own it.

A fair argument.

 

[Stalker0]

I would be fine if they renamed the gladiator to "strategist" or "tactician".

 

[Rhenny]

None of the powers of the Gladiator are particularly "gladiatorial" (well, maybe Brutal Display). They're more akin to a Strategist's bag of maneuvers, while the Warrior could inherit 4e's Weaponmaster name. The Knight could easily be the Defender, or mix it up and be the Knight-Protector (incidentally, a 3.0 prestige class).

I like the names you suggest too.