Forked Thread: Should complexity vary across classes?

[The Little Raven]

The last thing I said was what?

And you also said that "some" would be judgmental of your power choices, as if that was some kind of justification for people being denied a choice in what they want to play. That was directed towards those "some," not you.

And just because some people feel that a player doesn't "get" the game/class/whatever doesn't mean that player shouldn't be allowed to try.

 

[Voadam]

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.

Eh, I'd say from my experience it depends on level and build. A warlock with maxed out UMD can fulfill a utility magic aspect well through wands and scrolls. At will dimension door, fly, and invisibility are each significant utility magic functions. Even at will shatter for locks.

I've also seen warlocks do some novaing by taking daily limited spell-like ability metamagic feats.

 

[Voadam]

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.

Separate arguments, separate issues.

Again, changing wizard mechanics to be simpler won't change someone like S'mon from not wanting lazy or low IQ players to play high IQ studious character roleplay concepts, if his attitude is as I hypothesized it could be based on his statement.

His viewpoint could easily be the other way though, based solely on the mechanical complexity of the class. In that case simplifying the classes down to the point where all PCs would be comfortable with the complexity of the mechanics would fix the problem. However adding complexity to simpler classes like fighters would lead such a DM to say D&D is too complex for certain low-IQ or lazy players.

It could be a mix of the two viewpoints with him thinking that low IQ/lazy players should not play mechanically complicated or High IQ and studious roleplay concept characters and that a highly complex wizard class is a good match for the high IQ studious wizard roleplay archetype.

In any case I don't feel D&D design should be driven by reacting against such individual DM preferences but instead should drive to what will make the best game play for the most players. IMO that means varying complexity among classes to accomodate different player playstyles.

However the argument you pose in this post about physical in game described actions versus high IQ and talking character actions I consider a nonissue.

I am perfectly fine with having conclusions, decisions, and talking be handled fully by PCs.

These things can be handled mechanically through stats and rolls and DM direction, but I am fine with them being governed solely by PCs.

A Player need not know magic to play a wizard. I'm fine though with leaving players to make deductions on their own regardless of what their sheet says the character's intelligence is or how high they roll on a d20.

It is an arbitrary playstyle preference for which lines you draw between mechanics and player control. Same thing for what level of detail things are handled at.

In a LARP I would expect a character who wants to be a tracker to actually have their success at it be commensurate with their tracking skill and the situations they come across.

In a game where the player is not physically there to track this must be handled by mechanics.

In a game where roleplaying is handled by acting out your character you must be persuasive yourself to be successful at playing a persuasive character.

In one where roleplaying is handled mechanically you must either roll well or mechanically be good at persuading.

Drawing a line between describing physical things in the nonphysical story and the player's roleplaying out a 1st person interaction or making conclusions or deductions off of the described story seems a natural division to me.

 

[RFisher]

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

Personally, I don’t think this has anything to do with IQ. And I only think it has to do with complexity to a limited extent.

The experience of playing different classes is different. The skill a player exercises while playing different classes are different.

This is something I enjoy about D&D.

Firstly, it means that different players can choose different classes that fit their individual skills and give them the experience they enjoy most.

Secondly, it means variety from PC to PC. While I normally enjoy playing Fighters the most, playing one of the other classes is an enjoyable change-of-pace because it requires me to exercise different skills and give me a different experience.

Thirdly, yes, there are some classes that end up being more accessible for new players. That doesn’t mean that experienced players can’t enjoy them—and not just as slumming. It simply means some classes are more accessible for new players.

Likewise, there’s nothing wrong with having classes that aren’t as accessible to new players. They bring different things to the table.

(This makes me think of Magic Realm. Nobody thinks it is a flaw in the game that playing the Dwarf is more accessible than playing the Witch King. Nobody thinks that an experienced player playing a Dwarf is just turning off his brain. Rather people enjoy having such different options making the game richer.)

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

What is so difficult about playing a Wizard?
What makes playing the Wizard interesting?

Is it the spell management? Having to prepare spells, order them into slots?

Or is it how to use the powers he has effectively? Figuring out the right spot for his Fireball spell? Determining that this is the encounter where he should pull out his Wall of Force spell to restrict the enemies? Deciding which character should gain the Resist Energy (Fire) spell while fighting the Red Dragon? Seeing the enemies that line themselves up for a Lightning Bolt?


What is so so easy about playing a Fighter?
What makes playing him enjoyable?

Is it the fact that he just has to make an attack every round?

Or is it that you pick a foe and deal a lot of damage to him? That you coordinate yourself with the Rogue to get flanking opportunities? That you turn the enemies attention to you and get in the way of enemies trying to attack the (physically) weaker characters? That it's you that gets attacked, often missed, sometimes hurt, but always in the heat of the battle?

---

I think you see where I am going with this - I think it is not the mechanical complexity that defines these characters, or makes them so interesting. It is the kind of things they just do, the way they operate, the way they decide when to act, or how to act.


The last time I played a (3E) Cleric, I made him (her, actually) a Healing/Buffing machine. I could have tried a melee-focused build - but I really found doing that way to complicated and uninteresting. If I wanted melee, I would have picked a Fighter.
And indeed, the last time I picked a Fighter, I played one that was in the midst of the battle and kept his enemy busy. I didn't go the Weapon Focus route, instead picked all the various Combat Maneuver feats (ending up mostly with feats improving my ability to trip, or allowing me to trip more often). I used these feats to annoy my enemies and to "disable" them. I tripped them, so they couldn't get away from me, and that they couldn't hit has hard as they wanted.
The last time I played a Wizard, he was definitely more in the "blast-a-lot" category. I was always looking for the right opportunity to cast my most effective spells - At low levels, I had one Scroll of Fireball (unable to cast the spell on my own yet), prepared for the right moment - which happened to be a formation of Hobgoblins we were about to engage.

In hindsight, I think all these aspects defined what I enjoyed most about these classes - it was not the mechanical complexity (though that was part of the motivation why I switched, too - I didn't always want to manage spell slots, but sometimes melee combat gets a little boring, too), it was the decision-making process that made me fulfill my characters role.

 

[Victim]

Eh, I'd say from my experience it depends on level and build. A warlock with maxed out UMD can fulfill a utility magic aspect well through wands and scrolls. At will dimension door, fly, and invisibility are each significant utility magic functions. Even at will shatter for locks.

I've also seen warlocks do some novaing by taking daily limited spell-like ability metamagic feats.

But a tricked out, UMD based warlock is complicated like a wizard because you have lots of scroll or wand options each round and the overhead of managing scroll selection and expenses.

 

[Fenes]

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.

Do you want all classes to be easy to build and run (and maybe boring for smart people) or complex (and maybe frustrating for dumb/lazy people)?

 

[Ginnel]

As was said earlier in the thread

varying complexity great.

said differing complexities tied down to classes/power sources/races or anything like that Bad.

In 3E or 4E I would be happy to make a character for a player who found something too complex be arcane martial or whatever, I'm pretty sure with a simple enough explanation (step by step ones are really good) & the use of aids such as power cards for example I could sort out the complexity problem

The simplicity problem is a bit different with 3E its manageable mostly because of the array of splat books you just make them a spellcasting variant like a warblade or spellthief in other games I'd have to look at making new classes or using a different system.

In my experience I've had one player complain about stuff being too complex, sorceror in D&D but quite a few people complaining that, fighters, monks, rogues, paladins, are too simple and straightforward in it.

 

[Remathilis]

Do you want all classes to be easy to build and run (and maybe boring for smart people) or complex (and maybe frustrating for dumb/lazy people)?

How bout a happy medium?

Seriously, I think 4e has come the closest so far to trying to balance them. The wizard, for example, has the simplicity of a sorcerer (limited choices, at-will/encounter powers), the versatility of a wizard (spellbook swap, rituals) with a collection of spells and powers that use the same general framework as the other seven classes. (Rather than fighters using the base system, wizards using spell-prep, bards using spontaneous casting, warblades using martial stances, psions using psionics, etc)

The other alternative is what 3.5 was beginning to do: offer a variety of base-classes that generally fill the same role, but do it mechanically different (cleric vs. archivist vs. favored soul, for example). I'd rather the flavor (power source) rather than mechanics make the classes differ.

 

[Voadam]

But a tricked out, UMD based warlock is complicated like a wizard because you have lots of scroll or wand options each round and the overhead of managing scroll selection and expenses.

I agree to an extent for one using UMD to fill the utility role.

UMD with scrolls can require significant resource management of one shot items.

Wands are a little less of an issue, with 50 charges IME you generally use them when they can be used without worrying too much about conserving them.

Furthermore I consider most utility spells to be generally out of combat stuff so the multiple options per round is not really a big consideration. But even with utility spells in combat I think that would only come into play as a significant complexity factor in combat when carrying a ton of scrolls. Adding two wands into a warlock's combat arsenal of eldritch blasts and a couple at will combat does not seem like a significant complexity increase, it is adding in two more essentially at will power options.

Managing the purchasing of the items can involve complexity of resource management and tracking the charges used is an added management step as well.

Warlocks don't have to be mechanically straightforward, they have options to be complex, just like rogues do.