Forked Thread: Should complexity vary across classes?

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Alternatively

Player 1: Ok, we have a cleric and a ranger, we need a mage.
Player 2: Man, I don't want to play the mage. Keeping track of all those spells sucks.
Player 1: Why don't you play a warlock instead?
Player 2: Cool!

But, then, that'd be looking at the situation with optimism, which is strictly forbidden.

If you picked Sorcerer, I might have found your solution workable, but a Warlock cannot hope to replace a Wizard. I've played Wizards, and I have played Warlocks, and they have a very different role in the party. The whole utility magic aspect of the Wizard is lost, and the "nova" ability of the wizard is non-existent for a Warlock.

 

[Greg K]

Depends on how easy it is to do and how encouraged the DM is to do it. The 3e rules have some throw away lines on the subject (I recall the making a more roguish fighter section) but not all that much. It's been a while since I read prior editions, but I don't recall much at all.

While it would have been nice to have had the UA class variants in the 3.0 and 3.5 PHB, I used those "throw away lines" in the PHB to create fighter class variants and my version of the widerness rogue shortly after the 3e PHB was released.

 

[The Little Raven]

But, then, that'd be looking at the situation with optimism, which is strictly forbidden.

And it also doesn't involve telling (or implying to) others that they're too stupid to play a wizard.

 

[Remathilis]

Alternatively

Player 1: Ok, we have a cleric and a ranger, we need a mage.
Player 2: Man, I don't want to play the mage. Keeping track of all those spells sucks.
Player 1: Why don't you play a warlock instead?
Player 2: Cool!

But, then, that'd be looking at the situation with optimism, which is strictly forbidden.

Too bad that's not what S'mon implied.

I like that crap. I don't want a low-IQ or lazy player playing a Wizard (though I do want them to able to play the game & have a good time); I like my Wiz players to be studious types like the class archetype. For the others there's Sorcerer. Likewise I'm smart but I like to be able to play Fighters (or Barbarians) and put my brain in neutral (I used to like playing 1e Elf Fighter-Mage-Thiefs back in high school, but these days I much prefer a simple character).

Which to me says "you're too stupid to play a wizard". Likewise, its implied you could run a fighter (mechanically, not RP-wise) without being in the same room. So lazy or stupid PLAYERS should stick to fighters, smart and prudent PLAYERS should be wizards.

I'm not sure that's what S'mon meant, but thats what it sounded like. If that be the case, I gladly welcome wizards and fighters running off the same engine.

 

[Voadam]

Too bad that's not what S'mon implied.



Which to me says "you're too stupid to play a wizard". Likewise, its implied you could run a fighter (mechanically, not RP-wise) without being in the same room. So lazy or stupid PLAYERS should stick to fighters, smart and prudent PLAYERS should be wizards.

I'm not sure that's what S'mon meant, but thats what it sounded like. If that be the case, I gladly welcome wizards and fighters running off the same engine.

I don't think that making all classes the same mechanical complexity would get S'mon to be fine with low-IQ or lazy players playing a Wizard in his game. He wants high IQ studious characters to be played by high IQ and studious players.

I think this is a roleplaying issue rather than a mechanics issue.

"You're too dumb to play an Iron Heroes armiger [mechanically complex tank warrior]." is different from "You're not social enough to play a social interaction based character."

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

We're talking about a player having to be smart to play a wizard, which I disagree with.

.

Ah- my bad.

Still, I have no problem with the Wiz having a higher intrinsic complexity than other PCs. Here's a suggestion- if your "low-IQ" players are having difficulty running them...

HELP THEM OUT!

(I say this having handheld a lot of noobs, kids and utter idiots* through the early stages of roleplaying a particular game.)

"Dude, a braniac like Boomadore wouldn't wade into combat with his dagger, he'd launch that lightning bolt at that BBEG."

"Don't you think that Boomadore's Grease spell would be appropriate at this particular junction?"

"Meteor Swarm----NOW!"

or even

"Ehhh...Summon Care Bear is a suboptimal spell, and it really doesn't fit your character's style. How about a protection or attack spell from that level?"

Eventually, even the dumbest RPGer can find his stride as a spellcaster, maybe even an arcane archetype he can manage quite well. Perhaps he'd shine as a "Tim" and keep launching fire spells.

* In particular, I remember a HERO player who could never figure out how many die he was supposed to roll...for the same attack, and a 3.5 player who couldn't figure out attack rolls. In both cases, the groups were happy to have the players along because- mechanics ineptitude aside- they contributed to the fun of the gaming sessions with their role play.

 

[The Little Raven]

"You're too dumb to play an Iron Heroes armiger [mechanically complex tank warrior]." is different from "You're not social enough to play a social interaction based character."

Does a fighter player have to be an athlete and martial artist in real life? No.
Does a cleric or paladin player have to be a clergyman in real life? No.
Does a ranger player have to be able to track and hunt in real life? No.

Why does a wizard player have to have a high IQ in real life?
Why does a "face" character's player have to be a social butterfly in real life?

It seems silly to require a player to have the same traits as his character when the game is predicated on you pretending to be something other than what you are in real life. And it's even sillier when this restriction is only applied to particular character types, but not others.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Why does a wizard player have to have a high IQ in real life?

I think the point they're trying to make is that playing a wizard or any full spellcaster requires a lot of situational decision making- who to target, what to target them with, how best to target most of them without fragging partymates- as well as a critical eye for picking out good spells.

After all, not all spells are created equal. Some would contend that if you don't take MM and Sleep at 1st level, you'd best have a good RP reason for doing so...and they might not agree with your decision even then.

And some would say that such decisions can be beyond the scope of certain lesser intellects.

They're probably right, but that's less of an issue for me. I'm firmly a believer in playing what you want to.

 

[The Little Raven]

I think the point they're trying to make is that playing a wizard or any full spellcaster requires a lot of situational decision making- who to target, what to target them with, how best to target most of them without fragging partymates- as well as a critical eye for picking out good spells.

These traits are all derived from being able to play the class and to learn these things. Denying people the ability to play a class because they don't have the experience, or aren't up-front tactical geniuses denies them to ability to develop the skills they need.

After all, not all spells are created equal. Some would contend that if you don't take MM and Sleep at 1st level, you'd best have a good RP reason for doing so...and they might not agree with your decision even then.

So, people should be denied access to what they want to play because others are fixated on their own preconceived notions of what is "acceptable" for a player of that class? Needless to say, I disagree. Vehemently.

And some would say that such decisions can be beyond the scope of certain lesser intellects.

And those "some" are imposing their perception of their fellow players onto them and limiting their actions because of that perception ("I think Dave isn't very smart, so he's not allowed to play smart characters."). It's insulting to the player to assume that they can't actually learn, especially when they'd have access to the assistance of those "greater" intellects at the table.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

So, people should be denied access to what they want to play because others are fixated on their own preconceived notions of what is "acceptable" for a player of that class? Needless to say, I disagree. Vehemently.

<etc.>

The last thing I said was what?

Oh yeah- this!

I'm firmly a believer in playing what you want to.

It's insulting to the player to assume that they can't actually learn, especially when they'd have access to the assistance of those "greater" intellects at the table.

And yet, as I pointed out, some players never learn. That doesn't make them bad players, though. It just means they don't "get" the game, either intellectually or emotionally (IOW, they fail to care enough about the game's mechanics to get into it).

This can vary from person to person and game to game.

I play poker with some guys who go to casinos out of state and essentially have a free vacation. I only beat them at Texas Hold 'Em, and only when drunk. (Apparently, they can't read me then.) I just don't care for poker on any more than a casual level.

OTOH, none of them has beaten me in a game of chess in 10 years.

One of the guys is the slowest M:tG player I've ever seen. He reads. Every. Word. Of. Every. Card. His brain treats Magic cards like Vancian spells- once they've left his immediate attention, he's forgotten what they do.