Forked Thread: Should complexity vary across classes?

[Remathilis]

I am not sure if I am one of those. The aforementioned casters were not the only ones with access to virtually unlimited options. Just about every class had lots of room for customization because of the myriad of feats/alternate class features/prcs etc available. Even melee classes like fighters.
(

DM: Ok, for the next few levels, I'm running Tomb of the Ice Lich...
Fighter: Ice Lich? Well, I guess Improved Critical: Scimitar is going to be a useless feat.
Rogue: Tomb? Awe man, I shoulda put higher ranks in disable device rather than gather info. And so much for sneak attack...
Sorcerer: Ice Lich? Man, I should took blast of flame instead of ice storm
Cleric: Ok, then I should prep resist energy and searing light?

The other three classes had unlimited options, at the time of char-gen and leveling. Not during game. The cleric has unlimited options at char-gen AND during game; he can simple switch every spell he has prepped for a more useful one, and 24 game hours later, he's a whole-new PC loaded for whatever challenge comes up.

 

[Shroomy]

To answer the OP's original question, no, I want all classses to be of equal (or very nearly equal) complexity. I would want a new player to be able to come in and pick any class they want, and then play it effectively without a steep learning curve. I think that 4e accomplishes this via by having classes (and their powers) designed around specific, relatively easy to understand roles and by the unified mechanics used for powers. IMO, its relatively easy for new players to come in and create a PC of any class that will be effective during the game (which is quite different from optimized).

Now, I think the genius of 4e is that on this simple foundation, there's a staggering potential for complexity if you want to optimize your character or delve into the technical minutae of each power.

 

[Runestar]

So if you like the warblade to represent the fighter (which I happen too) the 4e fighter is likely a much better fit for you than the 3e fighter.

You misunderstand me. I liked the warblade not only for its mechanics (which I concur that 4e replicates quite well), but also for the way it interacts with other classes.

You weren't limited to just a pure warblade (viable a career path as it may be). You could go wild with multiclassing possibilities, such as...

1) warblade3/crusader1/swordsage1/shadow sun ninjaX
2) monk2/swashbuckler3/warblade7/eternal blade8
3) warblade11/monk2/swordsage2/master of nine5
4) splash other class lvs for additional features like more feats etc.
5) factotum/warblade multiclass
6) warblade/swordsage multiclass (which has a lot of possible permutations, depending on how many of each you want to take).

The list goes on and on, restricted only by your own imagination (and well, your access to splatbooks). To me, 3e was like playing with lego bricks. The sky was literally the limit when it came to what you could construct. But 4e? More like playing action-figure dressup. You already come with the preconstructed GI-JOE action figure (in 4e terms, the basic class template). All that is really left is to decide what sort of accessories you want to outfit him with. Do you go with the rocket launcher or the rifle? The parachute or the inflatable dinghy? I can design a million different weapons for you to choose from, and while your choices give you room for minor variations here and there, ultimately, it is still the same figure to me.

Every edition of D&D before 3e would disagree with you.

-O

Had 3e not existed, I would be inclined to agree that 4e would be massive improvement. But I felt that 3e really raised the bar when it came to reinventing dnd. It not only adequately ported the "feel" and "essence" of previous editions over, but added new options, and lots of them. To the extent that 3e should in turn become the new gold standard with which future revisions ought to be gauged against, not 1e or 2e (revolutionary as they may be). 3e gave us options.

4e seemed more of a step back in the wrong direction, IMO. Peel away the flashy names/terminology and what are we left with? 2.5e? The 1 class from start to finish rule was a bug, not a feature. 3e multiclassing freed us from the tyrannous yoke of this limitation. 4e multiclassing....um...

Had it been marketed under a different name, I would probably have been happy to just pick up a new system to learn. But to classify it as dnd...

 

[Obryn]

Had 3e not existed, I would be inclined to agree that 4e would be massive improvement. But I felt that 3e really raised the bar when it came to reinventing dnd. It not only adequately ported the "feel" and "essence" of previous editions over, but added new options, and lots of them. To the extent that 3e should in turn become the new gold standard with which future revisions ought to be gauged against, not 1e or 2e (revolutionary as they may be). 3e gave us options.

4e seemed more of a step back in the wrong direction, IMO. Peel away the flashy names/terminology and what are we left with? 2.5e? The 1 class from start to finish rule was a bug, not a feature. 3e multiclassing freed us from the tyrannous yoke of this limitation. 4e multiclassing....um...

Had it been marketed under a different name, I would probably have been happy to just pick up a new system to learn. But to classify it as dnd...

I think you're missing my point.

You can certainly say that 3e was all about character build options, and that, since 4e has fewer character options (in some ways), 4e is not 3e.

You can't say that, because you think 4e has fewer options than 3e, it's not D&D. Every edition of the game before 3e was far more restrictive with character options than 4e is. If 4e is not D&D for this reason, neither were AD&D, 2e, BECMI, RC, and the rest.

You can make 4e-is-not-D&D arguments for other reasons, but those have really been played out, and nobody is persuading anyone of anything at this point.

-O

 

[Reynard]

Every edition of D&D before 3e would disagree with you.

-O

There's a huge difference. Options in AD&D were based on GM fiat -- if it wasn't expressly forbidden by the rules, it was possible, depending on the game and the group and the DM. With fewer rules, it follows, a lot more things were possible. 2E, for example, solved the disarm/sunder/bull rush problem rather simple: apply a penalty or use an opposed an opposed attack roll. The end. Everything else was up to the DM. this is millions of options. Even more to the point, a fighter in 1E or 2E could be anything -- any sub-genre, any archetype, any flavor, any role, simply by virtue of those things not being codified into the rules.

 

[Mort]

There's a huge difference. Options in AD&D were based on GM fiat -- if it wasn't expressly forbidden by the rules, it was possible, depending on the game and the group and the DM. With fewer rules, it follows, a lot more things were possible. 2E, for example, solved the disarm/sunder/bull rush problem rather simple: apply a penalty or use an opposed an opposed attack roll. The end. Everything else was up to the DM. this is millions of options. Even more to the point, a fighter in 1E or 2E could be anything -- any sub-genre, any archetype, any flavor, any role, simply by virtue of those things not being codified into the rules.

Isn't saying "well the DM could always make it up" kind of a cop-out? It's certainly not an argument for flexibility.

Besides if it wasn't in the rules many (if not most) DM's would rule you can't do it.

Regardless, 4e has an entire (decent) section on "saying yes" and allowing improvisation and maneuvers not provided for in the rules. If your argument is in anyway serious and/or not tongue-in-cheek, it does a pretty good job for options; under those conditions.

 

[The Little Raven]

Options in AD&D were based on GM fiat

That means the game did not come with options.

this is millions of options.

Options that a person is providing, not the game itself.

Even more to the point, a fighter in 1E or 2E could be anything

Except useful at high levels.

 

[The Little Raven]

Regardless, 4e has an entire (decent) section on "saying yes" and allowing improvisation and maneuvers not provided for in the rules. If your argument is in anyway serious and/or not tongue-in-cheek, it does a pretty good job for options; under those conditions.

Yeah, if "make it up entirely" from earlier editions counts as "millions of options," then the "here's the tools to adjudicate stuff you want to make up" must count as "bagillions of options."

--

On the main topic, no. Complexity should not vary across classes, because then you have crap like "Sorry, Dave, but you're not smart enough to play the wizard, since it's so complex" or "I don't play fighters, because they aren't the smart person's class."

 

[S'mon]

I never got to try this out, but I'm sure many, if not all, problems with casters overshadowing other characters could be fixed with replacing them with spontaneous-only counterparts. In essence, by limiting clerics, druids and wizards to 45-55 spells max (0-9th level) you could remove a lot of potential problems.

Problem being, I think most dedicated spellcaster-type players with chafe, if not outright revolt, at the idea of wizards and clerics being knocked down a peg or three.

I agree with your analysis. Some solutions of mine include limiting Cleric & Druid to PHB spells unless they swap out 2 PHB spells per 1 non PHB spell. With Wizards, they need to have access to spells limited - either don't hand out spell books/extra spells, or do what 1e did and cap their number of spells known per level at eg their INT score.

I haven't seen a problem in my current 3e campaign so far (admittedly the highest PCs are only 3rd) - we have lots of encounters per day which limits the power of the casters. The Cleric is a BBn-1/Clr-2 which is quite strong, but limited compared to a straight Cleric. The other divine caster is a Spirit Shaman-3, a spont caster class which seems nicely balanced. And there are no Wizards; we had two Sorcerers but yesterday they went wandering off together without the rest of the party and met a minotaur...

 

[S'mon]

On the main topic, no. Complexity should not vary across classes, because then you have crap like "Sorry, Dave, but you're not smart enough to play the wizard, since it's so complex" or "I don't play fighters, because they aren't the smart person's class."

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).