Forked Thread: Should complexity vary across classes?

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Reading: It's fun and informative. Pull those dusty old tomes of your shelf and take a look. lots of good stuff in every edition of (A)D&D.




You seem to have a vry narrow definition of "useful", one that I don't subscribe to or even think is meaningful. I mean, if the definition of "useful" is limited to combat, that means combat is the only thing that matters in D&D, which would be a really sad, boring thing.

It is not boring, because combat is ultimiately a very interesting part of the game. If it wasn't, there were fewer rules for it. Even "story-telling" games that supposedly focus less on it have complex rules to handle combat.

But anything "important" outside of combat can apply to any character. What out-of-combat options are unique to the Fighter and infeasible for a Wizard, a Rogue or a Cleric? If there were more "meta-game"/narrative/story-telling mechanics to each class, then you might have a point, but there aren't.

Maybe it was different in earlier editions, with the inconsistent skill system that treated skills with different subsystems for different class (like percentile skills for rogues, Non-Weapon Proficiencies and so on.) But we got away from that, maybe for the sake of "verisimilitude" and believability.

The name of the class is Fighter. I would expect him to be useful in combat all the time. I can get why a Rogue, Cleric, Wizard, Bard, Monk, Archivist, Scientist, Engineer, Wheelman, Warlock, Thief, Priest, Rat Catcher or what-you-have might not useful in combat at all levels (or at all). But a Fighter?

 

[TerraDave]

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.

To pick up on what little raven said, this didn't always work out in practice. And a lot of stuff in AD&D did have specific rules. Quite a few actually. Then there were spells. Pages, and pages, and pages, and then some more pages, of spells...leading to the point of the thread.

EDIT: And what do you have against viking hats?

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.

I have been debating on this, and not really deciding. I almost agree, I know of players over the years who would have benefited from slightly simpler (or a lot simpler) spellcasters, or non-spellscasters with more options...And overall I think 4E tries extra hard to balance being simple with having options...but the fact that in 3E you could make either a wizard with metamagic feats or a barbarian with a greataxe...

Its hard to say. Maybe after a few more posts.

 

[The Little Raven]

Reading: It's fun and informative.

Indeed it is. Especially the part where you said that options were available by GM fiat, meaning the book doesn't actually contain those options since the DM has to make them up.

Being able to make stuff up yourself does not mean the book, as written, gives you more options, since you're providing the options, not the book.

Pull those dusty old tomes of your shelf and take a look. lots of good stuff in every edition of (A)D&D.

Indeed. But options to customize characters are lacking. Being able to make them up doesn't make the book have those options.

You seem to have a vry narrow definition of "useful", one that I don't subscribe to or even think is meaningful. I mean, if the definition of "useful" is limited to combat, that means combat is the only thing that matters in D&D, which would be a really sad, boring thing.

A fighter in previous editions wasn't very useful in a social situation, since he had little (3e) to no (2e and earlier) social skills, and he wasn't useful in finding or disarming traps. The player might be useful in a puzzle solving situation, but that doesn't reflect actual usefulness on the part of the specific class since any class's player could do that. So, not a whole lot of use for the fighter, specifically, outside a fight.

And if the Fighter is no longer useful in a fight, then something has seriously gone wrong.

 

[Mallus]

I don't think a particular class should have should have a significantly greater number of options available to them than another --and adding new abilities that broaden a character's suite of abilities should be relatively easy.

So no, complexity shouldn't vary that much between classes. Though ideally, every class should be playable in 'simple' mode, with a small number of viable abilities for players who aren't interested in immersing themselves in the minutiae of the class mechanics.

 

[Voadam]

4e did this, so obviously the designers were of the same mind. I've always wondered what % of people who dislike 4e were those that really liked the open ended wizards, clerics and druids. My gut feeling is it's a pretty high number.

I'm sticking with 3e, but if you look at the games I run (such as the pbp games in the top of my signature) you'll see that I switched druids and clerics to use the spontaneous caster options from UA so they have limited spells known.

High level wizard spell prep is something that slows down the game and therefore can be annoying, but it is not enough of a problem for me to switch it in my games.

I like tons of spells existing with options to continually expand them, but I prefer tracking limited individual spell options per character at the table and prefer having characters ready to go instantly the way spontaneous casters and fighters and warlocks, etc. are.

 

[TerraDave]

The thread has been nominated for best weekly topic! (I think).

Be sure to click that medal on the first post.

Thanks for all your support. Now back to are regularly scheduled discussion of variable class complexity.

 

[RFisher]

Isn't saying "well the DM could always make it up" kind of a cop-out?

Nope.

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

I know. I’m sorry. I was young, immature, and unexperienced. If I knew then what I know now... At least I’m trying to do better now.

Regardless, 4e has an entire (decent) section on "saying yes" and allowing improvisation and maneuvers not provided for in the rules.

Good!

A fighter in previous editions wasn't very useful in a social situation, since he had little (3e) to no (2e and earlier) social skills, and he wasn't useful in finding or disarming traps.

Any character has a 1 in 6 chance of finding a trap when searching for one in the correct area.

I also note that to the extent this book has mechanics for social situations (pp. B21, B24, and B27) a Fighter is at no particular disadvantage to any other PC class.

 

[Remathilis]

I also note that to the extent this book has mechanics for social situations (pp. B21, B24, and B27) a Fighter is at no particular disadvantage to any other PC class.

Wait, a fighter has 17% chance to find traps?!?!?

Remind what the "thief" class was for again...

 

[vagabundo]

I like the 4e class complexity balance. However I would like a very basic character class for complete beginners, but had some nice options.

Maybe an Adventurer Class with a smattering of the other classes - not sure exactly how this would work.

Anyway, DMG II, Make It So...

 

[RFisher]

Wait, a fighter has 17% chance to find traps?!?!?

Remind what the "thief" class was for again...

(Staying in the context of Basic D&D c. 1981...)

Depends upon who you ask. (^_^)

The thief does have some nifty abilities that can come in handy, though. He has a chance to pick locks if you want to avoid the sound and noise of opening a lock the more conventional way for some reason. By third level, he can find traps better than any other single PC. (Having everyone search is still the best choice.) He has a chance of disarming a trap. He can climb as any PC can, but he has a pretty good chance of climbing sheer surfaces too. If caught with nowhere to hide, he has a chance of hiding in shadows. He can move quietly as any PC can, but he has a chance of moving silently. If he gets the drop on a NPC, he gets +20% to hit and—if he hits—does 2d6 damage, which has a good chance of taking out any zero-level guards.

Of course, spells and magic items can also duplicate some of these abilities, though there are trade-offs.

(FWIW, some people interpret this edition as having two kinds of traps. Big traps like pits and small traps like poison needles in a lock. They posit that the 1 in 6 only applies to the big traps and the thief abilities only apply to the small traps.)