Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf 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 Nest
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*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!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Doing Wrong Part 2: Fighters, Wizards and Balance Oh My!
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="Sunseeker" data-source="post: 6067396"><p>We should not have "beginner" classes. All classes should have an easy level of introduction. Playing a fighter teaches you jack squat about how to play a Wizard, so why should a class that has nothing in common with another class, teach you how to play that class? Classes should naturally gain some complexity as they advance in level, but no class should need to be "more complex" by nature. More complex classes should not reward greater power, they should reward the player with the same thing a simple class does: being able to play the way you want. A more "complex" build may pull off more interesting effects in ways that seem much cooler than hitting something with a big metal stick, but there's no need to reward complication with mechanically superior effects.</p><p></p><p>People shouldn't be playing Fighters or Wizards because they want a complex or simple game experience. People should be playing Fighters or Wizards because that's the type of character they enjoy playing. No player, no matter how noobish, should be told "You can't play that." because people who cast spells are considered "advanced" and require high system mastery, and people who swing swords are considered "simple" and only require two dice rolls(hit and damage) per turn. We do NOT want to design game systems that actively discourage people from playing. All classes should teach how THAT class runs. </p><p></p><p>Relying on playing a Fighter to teach someone how to play a Wizard is completely backwards. Especially when the Wizard includes mechanics that the Fighter never ever even dreams about. Low-level Wizards should be as easy to get into as low-level fighters. If Wizards gain more complexity over the levels by nature as opposed to the fighter who must <em>choose</em> to take on such complexity, that's fine. But Wizards should not be so horridly complex that a level 1 Wizard cannot be played by a new player, and Fighters should not be so simple that a 15th-level Fighter cannot be enjoyed by an experienced player.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Sunseeker, post: 6067396"] We should not have "beginner" classes. All classes should have an easy level of introduction. Playing a fighter teaches you jack squat about how to play a Wizard, so why should a class that has nothing in common with another class, teach you how to play that class? Classes should naturally gain some complexity as they advance in level, but no class should need to be "more complex" by nature. More complex classes should not reward greater power, they should reward the player with the same thing a simple class does: being able to play the way you want. A more "complex" build may pull off more interesting effects in ways that seem much cooler than hitting something with a big metal stick, but there's no need to reward complication with mechanically superior effects. People shouldn't be playing Fighters or Wizards because they want a complex or simple game experience. People should be playing Fighters or Wizards because that's the type of character they enjoy playing. No player, no matter how noobish, should be told "You can't play that." because people who cast spells are considered "advanced" and require high system mastery, and people who swing swords are considered "simple" and only require two dice rolls(hit and damage) per turn. We do NOT want to design game systems that actively discourage people from playing. All classes should teach how THAT class runs. Relying on playing a Fighter to teach someone how to play a Wizard is completely backwards. Especially when the Wizard includes mechanics that the Fighter never ever even dreams about. Low-level Wizards should be as easy to get into as low-level fighters. If Wizards gain more complexity over the levels by nature as opposed to the fighter who must [I]choose[/I] to take on such complexity, that's fine. But Wizards should not be so horridly complex that a level 1 Wizard cannot be played by a new player, and Fighters should not be so simple that a 15th-level Fighter cannot be enjoyed by an experienced player. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Doing Wrong Part 2: Fighters, Wizards and Balance Oh My!
Top