Ditto
Lack of variety (mechanical complexity) is a big negative in my opinion. I feel that it contributes to a perception of "all classes being the same" and prevents players with differing play-style preferences from finding a class that "fits".
Forked Thread: Should complexity vary across classes?
- Thread starter TerraDave
- Start date
Ditto
Lack of variety (mechanical complexity) is a big negative in my opinion. I feel that it contributes to a perception of "all classes being the same" and prevents players with differing play-style preferences from finding a class that "fits".
Remathilis
Legend
But doesn't it also lead to players "specializing" in a particular class at the expense of others. If your group tends to like micro-managing resources rather than butt-kicking, don't you see parties of wizards and no fighters (or worse, the "someone has to play the cleric" character). In my times, I've seen lots of players wanting to try a new role (caster vs. warrior, tank vs. sneak, etc) only to be disappointed with their choice and switching to the more "complex" classes, leaving gaping holes in the group (see my post above on the 20th level group. Count the caster/non-caster ratio. It wasn't always like that...)
Using a similar system for martial and magical characters means I learn the game once, not learn it for fighters, then rogues, then wizards, then psions, when warlocks, then warblades. I learn the rules, and I can switch from fighter to wizard without re-learning the game. It also means I won't go from "hmmm... which problem-solving spell should I prepare today?" to "I full-attack, move me up 5 feet."
The problem is that "more mechanicaly complex" usually translates into "many more options" (especially once you grasp the complexity) and that invariably translates to "better." It's hard to accept the person next to you not only taking up more time (thereby eating into yours) but also being more effective than you.
blargney the second
blargney the minute's son
That 'invariably better' is a mighty broad brush. I made a new player a character in our 3.5 game with the intention of it being very mechanically simple to run. I achieved that goal in spades, and she accidentally ended up being the group's dark horse powerhouse.
-blarg
Yes it was a broad brush and yes, depending on the group, you can have a "simple build" be the most effective build. But, it doesn't often work out that way, especially in groups with decent levels of system mastery.
Also the point was more that: mechanically complex = longer turn resolution in addition to often being better. The combination of the two = extremely irritating.
Though I'm curious - what does "mechanically simple to run" mean? Are we just talking the charging barbarian? because then you run into the problem of my first post - your turn takes 30 seconds - the complex character takes 5 minutes - which to repeat is extremely irritating.
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
More options doesn't have to mean more power. It was this way in D&D, but it doesn't have to be. You can be given options that all suck compared to the optimal solution.
In a way, that's how I experienced my Fighter in the Shackled City campaign.
He was "specialized" in different combat maneuvers (Improved Trip, Bullrush, Disarm, Grapple and so on). That was neat, except the only ability I could consistently use was tripping, while the rest was disappointing in effect for the most part.
) One time, we had a temporary player running a "traditional" Fighter that picked Power Attack and all the Weapon Focus feats he (or rather: she) could find. I had far more choices (Expertise, Power Attack, Trip, Disarm, Grapple, Sunder) then she in combat, but all the choices she could take where typically better then mine - she out-damaged my Fighter. Heck, I even had more face time thanks to Combat Reflexes and some reactive ability that allowed me to trip a dodged opponent if he missed. The only time I'd say there was a kind of "balance" was when I could trip (since this greatly reduces the enemies combat power), but that wasn't possible as often as I liked. And ultimately, still a boring choice, boiling down to two choices.
I think getting the "gamist" balance and the "fun" balance right between differently complex character classes is very hard - and it might be impossible.
More options doesn't have to mean more power. It was this way in D&D, but it doesn't have to be. You can be given options that all suck compared to the optimal solution.
In a way, that's how I experienced my Fighter in the Shackled City campaign.
He was "specialized" in different combat maneuvers (Improved Trip, Bullrush, Disarm, Grapple and so on). That was neat, except the only ability I could consistently use was tripping, while the rest was disappointing in effect for the most part.
The only time I'd say there was a kind of "balance" was when I could trip (since this greatly reduces the enemies combat power), but that wasn't possible as often as I liked. And ultimately, still a boring choice, boiling down to two choices.
I think getting the "gamist" balance and the "fun" balance right between differently complex character classes is very hard - and it might be impossible.
The problem here is that you didn't actually have more options because most of the options were illusory. When you have options A,B,C, and D but B,C,and D stink (and in actuality take away from option A because you devoted less to it) then you really only have option A.
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
As I said, in a way, that's how I experienced it. Not that it's exactly the same.
We could extrapolate a scenario where this would be the case: let's pretend that attack, disarm, sunder, grapple and trip are all equal to each other for class X used under the right circumstances, which happen in a way always giving me "fair" opportunities to use them.
Class Y has only Attack. But it's 25 % better then my attack and can also be used under all circumstances.
Anything is possible with an imagined hypothetical, I'm not sure where you're going with this.
If the question is "Is the above scenario desirable?" then no because charter 2 is then in every measurable way, under all circumstances, better than character 1. If you want to hypothesize a scenario where 4 options together = in effectiveness to 1 option then that's a better result(but still not as good because of economy, assuming there really is equality).
That said I think this the going down the wrong track. Few people like complexity for the sake of complexity. Most people put up with complexity because it allows them a better result for their character (whatever that better result may be). I'm sure most would drop the complexity if they could achieve the same result in a simpler way.
Silvercat Moonpaw
Adventurer
Quite possibly the problem is that D&D is too concentrated on adding incremental bonuses rather than focusing on how options influence the game.
Similar Threads
