Class complexity in D&D

[Endur]

One way to accomplish simplicitly is to reduce the number of books (core rules only, eseential rules only, basic rules only, etc.).

Another way is to keep level down(level 1-3 only, etc.).

 

[Leviatham]

By Fumble do you mean 'always miss on a one'? If so, it isn't always the same chance. It's just that success rate can't go past 95%. Unless the targets' AC is very low, the 10th level Fighter should have a better hit chance than the 1st level. Same thing happens at the other end. With very high target AC, both fighters have the same 5% hit chance.

Err... a 1 in a d20 is always the same chance. 5%. If success rate can't go past 95%, then you have 5% chance to miss, regardless of your level of expertise.

Agreed about fighting a lvl40 god, but that doesn't happen often. Encounters tend to be balanced. How come a lvl5 fighter against a minion has 5% chance of complete failure, and a lvl10 fighter against the same minion also have a 5% chance of complete failure.

To me it doesn't make sense. It might not be a big deal (is not, you're right there) but it still doesn't make sense to me...

 

[dkyle]

Err... a 1 in a d20 is always the same chance. 5%. If success rate can't go past 95%, then you have 5% chance to miss, regardless of your level of expertise.

You don't have a 5% chance to miss, regardless of expertise. You always have at least a 5% chance to miss. That's very different. Chances are, the lvl5 will have a greater chance to miss than the lvl10.

Agreed about fighting a lvl40 god, but that doesn't happen often. Encounters tend to be balanced. How come a lvl5 fighter against a minion has 5% chance of complete failure, and a lvl10 fighter against the same minion also have a 5% chance of complete failure.

To me it doesn't make sense. It might not be a big deal (is not, you're right there) but it still doesn't make sense to me...

In a "balanced encounter", a lvl 5 would have a greater miss chance than a lvl10. What's the problem?

I think you're getting too hung up on the "complete failure" notion. Missing on a 1 is exactly the same result as missing because your die result plus attack bonus didn't reach the target AC. Neither is any more "complete" than the other. A miss is a miss. A natural 1 is not a "fumble", or any other special kind of miss, unless you are using rules that have never been standard D&D.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I really just want each class to have the same moderate degree of complexity. Each class should have a single core concept with a unique primary game mechanic to convey that concept. From there, complexity can be added via more modular systems that apply equally for all classes. For example, a Druid's core mechanic would be Wild Shape, while a Shaman's would be its Spirit Companion. Other mechanics, like the intricacies of fancy weapon powers, would be non-class based systems open to everyone (though classes can build on said systems). Generally, the game as a whole should never exceed a certain level of complexity, but I don't see the need to over-simplify any one thing, either.

 

[Li Shenron]

What I would like to have is a system in which I can create a simple character in whatever class I choose, without loosing balance if other members of the party are playing complex characters. If I have a novice player arriving at my party and that player is interested in playing a wizard, I would like to be able to provide a simple character that then she’ll be able to develop and increase its complexity.

...

We need a skills system that will allow for the creation of both simple and complex characters in whatever class that will remain balanced with the rest of the classes.

In 3ed, if I wanted to play a very simple Fighter I would pick passive feats that grant flat bonuses, while if I wanted a complex Fighter I would pick proactive feats that granted more tactical options during combat, including those feats which remove the -4 penalty to special attack actions. If I wanted to play a very simple Wizard I would pick easy-to-use spells (e.g. Mage Armor, Magic Missile but also some utility spells... anything that has a short description, minimum decisions to make, and no bookkeeping required) and perhaps I'd use more my spell slots to prepare the same, commonly used spell. If I wanted the complex Wizard I would go for flexible spells such as the various summoning and polymorphing, and spells which require a more creative use such as illusions and enchantments.

My only complaint with 3ed is that you can only go that far with making a Fighter complex... spellcasters can easily be more complex than what even a veteran player can handle with ease, but the non-caster classes never go past a certain level of flexibility. Perhaps it's just a matter of the 3ed Fighter not having enough feats, but of course because there are feats which grant a flat bonus (and no flexibility) then granting more feats to allow more complex fighters end up also making the simple fighters too convenient compared to the complex.

Anyway... I think the idea of "we must have low-complexity classes" is definitely good, but it's being taken too far. That we should cater to beginners is paramount, but that we should cater to beginners from level 1 to level 30 is not... Why should the game necessarily provide low-complexity options past level 10? If it does then all good, but if it ends up being too hard to keep complexity down at high-level, I wouldn't give up other things to support it at any cost.

 

[Minigiant]

I've been contemplating ways to make simple and complex version of a class.

For example, a Fighter could choose between 2 class features. Warrior's Muscle (Simple) and Warrior's Might (Complex)

Both abilities grant a bonus to a damage rolls or skill rolls of a Fighter class skill he is trained in (Athletics, Endurance, Handle Animal, Intimidate, or Streetwise).

Warrior's Muscle is a bonus equal to your Fighter level

Warrior's Might is a 1d10(2d10/3d10) bonus that can be used once per day per fighter level before the fighter is fatigued for an hour.

A muscle fighter would be easy to play with few in-game choices but be viable at higher levels with its high raw bonus to damage and skills.

A might fighter would more complex as they would have to guage how often to use their might especial at higher levels when they have more usages.

 

[satori01]

In 3e the Fighter was not the class you gave to a complete noob to use. Fighters were difficult to play for a new player for all the math, all the silliness full move = no full attack, plus the math for all the feats, so and so on.

The Warmage was the easiest to use. If you are playing D&D you are going to have a decent amount of reading comprehension. People 'get' how to cast attack spells pretty quickly, and spell DC are static.

If you have a game of such simple base mechanics, a short list of powers to select is not a chore.

 

[Leviatham]

You don't have a 5% chance to miss, regardless of expertise. You always have at least a 5% chance to miss. That's very different. Chances are, the lvl5 will have a greater chance to miss than the lvl10.

That is very true. However, the point is that with a 1, regardless of how good a fighter you are, you miss. In my games, you fumble. You've missed in a more spectacular way. Or in a clumsier or dramatic one. It's one of the tools I use to aid role play situations.

In a "balanced encounter", a lvl 5 would have a greater miss chance than a lvl10. What's the problem?

I think you're getting too hung up on the "complete failure" notion. Missing on a 1 is exactly the same result as missing because your die result plus attack bonus didn't reach the target AC. Neither is any more "complete" than the other. A miss is a miss. A natural 1 is not a "fumble", or any other special kind of miss, unless you are using rules that have never been standard D&D.

The problem is that it doesn't matter how much you add to the die roll. If you have rolled a 1, even if you are the most super-awesome fighter in the world fighting against the most super tiniest of minions, you miss. Your attack bonus counts for nothing on a roll of one.

Let's bring it to a real life situation. A Karate student with yellow belt will have X chance to miss. One with brown bell will have less chances to miss. A 3rd dan black belt will have even less chances to miss. They are all attacked by the same petty thief in the street. Do you really think that a 3rd dan black belt will have the same (at least) 5% chance to miss compared with the yellow belt?

The roll of a 1 tells you so. I have a problem with that.

However (and to wrap up the conversation a bit. This is a tangent that should go into its own thread) you're right, its hardly a big deal and it's been a part of D&D since ever. Let's roll 1s!

 

[steeldragons]

I think the answer to the OP as to how to have simple or complex characters has kind of already been answered.

We know (or, at least, are being told) that the game is going to be modular in nature with lots of add-on optional bits to apply to a group's game as desired.

If that is the case, then the question is done. Here is the "base/basic/simple" character class and all it entails. If you have a group who will be using the "optional alignment module" throw that in the mix. If the group is using the "optional weapons speed and movement rules module" throw that in. If the group is using the "optional magical variant <insert class X> module" then add that to you character too. Etc...etc...as many or few "optional Y modules" as the DM and group desire/will allow.

I could totally imagine, and hope to be able to see when all's said and done, a party that includes a "Gimli-esque dwarf fighter", a "simple/basic human Fighter", beside another "human Fighter with the Knight theme", a "half-elf Lawful Good Cleric of <insert sun god> complete with with domain-type powers and specific 'specialty priest' spells", an "elf Mage/Thief" who is a reliant on her spellbook, another "elf Mage: Necromancy specialist, Neutral Good" who also has a spellbook but casts most of his magics spontaneously, all along side "a tiefling Ranger with the Pact-Bound Theme" giving him a few spell-like abilities/supernatural skills.

Hey, a dragon can dream, can't he?
--Steel Dragons