Forked Thread: Should complexity vary across classes?

[Obryn]

I think that, even in 4e, there's a small complexity gap between different characters.

I print out power cards because they're an easy aid for my players. I have noticed how different the stack heights are for each. At 3rd or 4th level, the dwarf fighter has...

* 2 at-wills
* 2 encounters
* 1 daily
* 1 utility
* 1 second wind card noting it's a minor action

So, 7 total options on any given round of combat.

The ranger has a similar amount.

The cleric I just made has
* 2 at-wills
* 2 encounters
* 1 daily
* 1 utility
* 2 separate channel divinities
* 1 Healing Word
* 1 Elven Accuracy
* 1 card marking my Hunter's Mark multiclass ability
* 1 card marking my second wind

So, 12 total things to remember.

The Eladrin wizard in my game has
* 2 at-wills
* 2 encounters
* 2 dailies (pick one)
* 2 utilities (pick one)
* Implement Mastery
* Fey Step
* Second Wind

So, 11 total for her. It would be 12 with Expanded Spellbook. Her stack will get higher and higher, relative to everyone else's as the game goes on. She also has several Rituals to track.


So, my conclusion is that Fighters are still generally easier to play, especially if they're of a pretty simple race like Dwarf or even Human. You still have less stuff to keep track of, and although you now have some resource management to handle, you have fewer total options to track every round. About the only thing that's tough to remember is the Combat Challenge feature.

-O

 

[Reynard]

Classes with varying degrees of complexity does help the game appeal to different kinds of players. What needs to happen, though, is that degree of complexity shouldn't necessarily be tied to the archetype of the character. That is to say, it shouldn't be that the wizard is complex and the warrior is simple. Rather, there should be both a complex and simple wizard and a complex and simple fighter. How one would go about this, I'm not sure. The sorcerer in 3E was an attempt at this but didn't quite manage it.

Also, where the complexity lies can have a big impact. Some people like in-play complexity, with lots of number shuffling and options at any given moment. Some players like out-of-play complexity, with lots of "build" options instead.

 

[Reynard]

Well, here's the thing. If I'm next to you in initiative order, waiting for my turn to step and cleave, how am I going to feel about your turn involving all the augmented beasties?

Complexity is best when it's orthogonal to the game, when you can explore it without taking up everyone else's time. Having your turn involve 20 die rolls, each of which are individually resolved in the time it takes to resolve my turn and its 1 die roll, is a bad kind of complexity.

I have to admit that I just plain don't understand this line of thought and feeling. It seems to come up a lot from a lot of different posters on different boards (so I am not picking on GlaziusF here), but it still seems strange to me that people would get bent out of shape by their friends having fun, even if that meant you had to wait a couple minutes for your turn. Wizards vs. fighters. Thieves and traps. Paladins going on their warhorse quests. Every time one of these subjects comes up, someone comes at it from the perspective of having to have "equal time" (and, usually, "equal ability/power") in order to have "equal fun".

Maybe it is because I am the youngest of 3 boys and I'm just used to having to wait and being on the bottom of the totem pole.

 

[Umbran]

I have to admit that I just plain don't understand this line of thought and feeling. It seems to come up a lot from a lot of different posters on different boards (so I am not picking on GlaziusF here), but it still seems strange to me that people would get bent out of shape by their friends having fun, even if that meant you had to wait a couple minutes for your turn.

I expect you have not had the treat of playing with a person or game that requires more than "a couple of minutes" to get things settled. I've seen games where one person can take up 10 minutes for each round of a combat. It wasn't a whole lot of fun, let me assure you.

That being said, such things are (in my experience) rare exceptions, rather than regular occurrences in the hobby.

 

[Obryn]

I expect you have not had the treat of playing with a person or game that requires more than "a couple of minutes" to get things settled. I've seen games where one person can take up 10 minutes for each round of a combat. It wasn't a whole lot of fun, let me assure you.

That being said, such things are (in my experience) rare exceptions, rather than regular occurrences in the hobby.

Not so rare! They call them "Druids."

-O

 

[Cadfan]

Complexity doesn't necessarily mean "takes really long turns."

As for getting bent out of shape because your friends are having fun, well, I'm your friend. Give me a hundred bucks. I promise to have fun with it.

 

[Mort]

I have to admit that I just plain don't understand this line of thought and feeling. It seems to come up a lot from a lot of different posters on different boards (so I am not picking on GlaziusF here), but it still seems strange to me that people would get bent out of shape by their friends having fun, even if that meant you had to wait a couple minutes for your turn. Wizards vs. fighters. Thieves and traps. Paladins going on their warhorse quests. Every time one of these subjects comes up, someone comes at it from the perspective of having to have "equal time" (and, usually, "equal ability/power") in order to have "equal fun".

Maybe it is because I am the youngest of 3 boys and I'm just used to having to wait and being on the bottom of the totem pole.

It's the classic problem of 1 person's "fun" infringing on another persons - especially if it's done on a consistant basis.

If every round goes something like:

Wizard: "ok my 2 summoned animals go" (rolls several dice for all of their attacks, "next I'll cast dispell magic to weaken the bad guys" rolls a ridiculous number of dice on the area dispell, (even if he only rolls once the DM then has to see where it applies), "oh, I guess those badies are still going strong better throw in a quickened fireball." more dice

Fighter: Ok I'll attack the baddie. rolls 3 or so attacks

Some people playing the fighter might get bored and then frustrated, even if they are being effective. The wizard player taking so much more time and seemingly doing so much more every round could test anyones patience.

 

[Remathilis]

Here is my problem with the complexity issue.

The problem comes when you have a group/game that a.) doesn't involve anyone new playing or b.) doesn't have players who want to auto-pilot their PC.

One of the classic complaints fighters got was they had one real choice: attack. Pick a weapon, and attack. Over, and over, and over again. Every combat. Attack. Sure, there are some days I don't mind being a mindless-d20 roller during combat, but other times, I want some complexity to my PC. And I don't switch games fast enough to be a wizard one week to fulfill my complexity crave and a fighter the next to fulfill my butt-kicker urges. In pre-3e games, I rarely saw a fighter over 9th level; many retired or dual-classed because combat grew boring for them.

Third DID fix the problem, too much. Sure, fighters got feats that opened all manner of combat options, but at the same time they stopped being the "simple" class they were before. Feats interact with feats, have feat-requisites, and frequently required a lot of on-the-fly math adjustments (dodges +1 AC, power-attacks subtract/add, etc),

Fourth has seemed to go toward limited choices, but meaningful ones. That fulfills my basic quota of butt-kicking and complex choices. Plus, you can still build a fighter that's "simple" and effective. For example:

Human Fighter:
Great Weapon Fighter (+1 with 2-h wpns)
Skills: Athletics, Endurance, Heal, Intimidate
Feats: Human Perseverance, Weapon Focus (Heavy Blades)
At-Will: Cleave (1w+str, str to nearby foes), Sure Strike (+2 to hit, 1w dmg), Reaping Strike (1w+str, str dmg on miss)
Encounter: Spinning Sweep (1w +str, foe prone)
Daily: Brute Strike (3w, reliable)

All about dealing out pain, without a lot of fanciness. A more advanced player might go for a different encounter or daily to do different status effects or tactical options, but what's listed above is a completley serviceable 4e fighter no more difficult to use than a typical 3e fighter.

 

[Remathilis]

It's the classic problem of 1 person's "fun" infringing on another persons - especially if it's done on a consistant basis.

If every round goes something like...

OMG! I played a High-level (20th) 3.5 game will a rogue/thief acrobat, a fighter/wizard/ek, a wizard/loremaster, a wizard/archmage, a cleric, and a 2-wpn ranger. It would literally take AN HOUR to resolve one round of combat! The ranger had seven attacks, the cleric had cast several buffs (with the requisite math changes to us all), the eldrich knight lobbed quickened spells and full-attacks (along with arcane strike), the archmage was a 2-spell a round howitzer (focusing on rays), and the loremaster fell in love with summon-monster, and typically had 3-5 of them on the battlefield delivering full attacks.

I was the rogue. I typically took three pot-shots with my uber-bow and went back to reading whatever novel I was reading at the time.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Classes with varying degrees of complexity does help the game appeal to different kinds of players. What needs to happen, though, is that degree of complexity shouldn't necessarily be tied to the archetype of the character. That is to say, it shouldn't be that the wizard is complex and the warrior is simple. Rather, there should be both a complex and simple wizard and a complex and simple fighter. How one would go about this, I'm not sure. The sorcerer in 3E was an attempt at this but didn't quite manage it.

Also, where the complexity lies can have a big impact. Some people like in-play complexity, with lots of number shuffling and options at any given moment. Some players like out-of-play complexity, with lots of "build" options instead.

I think Warlock vs Wizard works best at this. Barbarian vs Warblade might also make a good example. (I pick Barbarian because I think the Fighter is probably too weak compared to the Warblade)#

--

Finally, I really don't know if it was the "complexity" that attracted certain groups of players to their classes, or their theme and tasks.
A Wizard always had to choose his spells wisely to manipulate the battlefield.
A Cleric always had to prioritize who to heal and who to buff.
A Fighter always had to find a way to help Wizards, Clerics or Rogues to survive the onslaught of their enemies.

Even with simpler mechanics compared to 3E, a Wizard task is still battlefield control (presumably more explicitly then ever) - that will require a certain way of "thinking" to solve tasks as a Wizard.

I wonder if the "complexity" balance in 4E is purely a result of the goal of power balance, or if it was also something else - the idea that not the degree of complexity, but the type of influence on the battlefield is what causes many people to make their choice for a certain class. (If that is the case, I think R&R should have also spent more time on the non-battlefield stuff and figuring out what people like there, but maybe they tough that to be covered by the individual class archetypes?)

---

For me personally, I think at least 3E (but other games to) tend to make wander between extremes, without ever finding my "comfort" point. Fighters tend to be to simplistic and boring over time (but I like kicking butt in melee), while Wizards or Clerics can be a tedious exercise in micro-management. I enjoyed playing both, but could never play just one of the classes (but I suppose I am not unique to me.)

I don't know yet if 4E has reached the perfect equilibrium for me, but it might have done so.