Forked Thread: Should complexity vary across classes?

[Shades of Green]

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).

I don't think it has anything to do with intelligence or laziness, but rather with experience with the game, commitment to gaming, and playing styles. New players often struggle with the most basic concepts of D&D (and, if this is their first RPG, with those of role-playing as well) and would benefit from a simple-to-use class with minimal page-flipping and minimal resource-management. Casual players just want to have five or so hours of gaming fun every couple of weeks, but don't want to spend much time reading spell/power descriptions between game sessions, devising cunning plans or learning complex rules. And some players just want to focus on the story, on roleplaying or on non-rule problem solving rather than on the rules/wargame aspect of the game.

Variety means that the player could choose the level of rule complexity he's comfortable with in order to have the most fun he could playing the game.

 

[IceFractal]

For me, the loss of complexity is a big drawback, and I can see that the narrowing complexity gap could be one too.

Personally, the 3E Wizard/Cleric/Druid - that's the level of complexity/strategy/tactics I enjoy. I would be happy with a game where all the classes worked that way. But I can understand that not everyone would want that - some people dislike that level of complexity, and aren't going to have fun without some simpler options.

In an ideal game, you could select complexity separately from theme and role - for instance, both a simple and complex spellcaster, warrior, etc. However, that game does not exist - at least not as D&D. And personally, I would rather have 1/3 of the classes offering my desired complexity level than none of them doing so.

Because ultimately, you're not playing all the classes - you're playing one class (multiclassing aside), and that means that a game with one awesome class is better than a game with 100 bland ones.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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.

Indeed.

In an ideal game, you could select complexity separately from theme and role - for instance, both a simple and complex spellcaster, warrior, etc. However, that game does not exist - at least not as D&D. And personally, I would rather have 1/3 of the classes offering my desired complexity level than none of them doing so.

Wouldn't you just introduce another drawback?

If there was a "simple" Fighter class and a "complex" Fighter class, and both are balanced against each other, assuming similar "smart play". Wouldn't you feel a little stupid for playing the complex Fighter that requires you to manage all the complexity if you could reach the same end-result as the "simple" Fighter?

I don't think anyone likes complexity if there isn't a reward for it. Complicating game mechanics is not that difficult (if you want an example, may I suggest a game like Das Schwarze Auge? )

Simple Fighter:
You deal 2[W]+STR damage per round, or 1[W]+DEX damage and gain +2 to defenses. Not the simplest one possible, but simple enough. Two options each round.

Complex Fighter:
Attack One: 1[W]+STR damage per round. If you use this attack the second time in a row, damage increases to 2[W]+STR. If you use it a third time in a row, damage increases to 3[W]+STR. If you use it a fourth time in a row, damage is 2[W]+STR. You can't use it more then four times in a row.
If you use this attack immediately after three times of using Attack Two (see below), you deal 2[W]+STR damage. This doesn't count against your uses of Attack One, so the next Attack One power use deals still only 1[W]+STR damage.

Attack Two: 1[W]+DEX damage per round. If you use the attack the second time in a row, you also gain a +4 bonus defense. If you use it a third time in a row, you gain a +2 bonus to defense. If you use this power more then 3 times in a row, you restart the cycle.

Which class would you prefer? The second class is more complex, has more options, but is typically no stronger then the first one.

 

[IceFractal]

I guess there would have to be some benefit to the complexity - better versatility, or better ability to specialize at the expense of versatility, or something else. So I'm not sure how perfectly things could be balanced.

However, I'm not sure they need to be perfectly balanced, as long as they're at least on the same magnitude of power. For instance, the 3E Sorcerer vs Wizard is fine - they're both playing the same game, they can both contribute in most situations. The 3E Fighter vs Wizard is too big a gap, but we don't need an atomic-precision balancing scale to fix it.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I guess there would have to be some benefit to the complexity - better versatility, or better ability to specialize at the expense of versatility, or something else. So I'm not sure how perfectly things could be balanced.

However, I'm not sure they need to be perfectly balanced, as long as they're at least on the same magnitude of power. For instance, the 3E Sorcerer vs Wizard is fine - they're both playing the same game, they can both contribute in most situations. The 3E Fighter vs Wizard is too big a gap, but we don't need an atomic-precision balancing scale to fix it.

I agree that you don't need to achieve perfection. In the end, even the 4E classes are not perfectly balanced - in fact, in some regards they are consciously imbalanced - that'S what the roles will do, and you will see the same for monsters.

But a system as you propose just sounds like an ideal, a wish, not something I have yet seen. The Sorcerer is a good starting point, but without the use of a lot of scrolls and magic items (increasing complexity again), most parties might still prefer the Wizard. And even without scrolls, a Sorcerer is a lot more complex then a Fighter.