Forked Thread: Should complexity vary across classes?

[Dannyalcatraz]

I don't think leveling complexity is a necessity.

Some things, like combat or certain skills, can be quite easy to model with simple mechanics.

Other things, like reality warping spell or psionic effects might require a bit more creativity, and even novel mechanics.

There is no compelling reason to overcomplicate combat mechanics to match the spell mechanics, or oversimplify spell mechanics to match combat mechanics. They're 2 (potentially) discrete subsystems within an RPG.

If you can find a mechanic that works equally well for both, good on ya!

IMHO, 4Ed doesn't get there.

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).

I'm there with you 100%, S'mon.

I have no problem playing dumb or smart fighters ("Og" or Ulysses, dumb or smart rogues (a thug or Grey Mouser)...but a Wizard ought to be intelligent.

Unwise (low Wis)? Quite possibly, but definitely a powerful intellect.

You want a dumb arcanist, play a Sorcerer.

 

[Spatula]

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.

Exactly. Although I'm not sure both possibilities can exist in the same game. It's more likely that you'd have, say, a Basic set for one crowd and an Advanced set for the other...

There's nothing wrong with simple or complex playstyles. Mixing them up into the same game and tying them to particular archtypes was a flaw in D&D - not that I think "newbie-friendly" and "for advanced players only" was ever intended in the designs of the fighter and magic-user. It was just a side-effect of magic being cool and special and reality-bending.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Although I'm not sure both possibilities can exist in the same game.

They can in a point-based system, to be sure.

To do so in a class-based system would probably require discrete classes...like the Fighter vs. anything from Bo9S.

 

[Voadam]

Exactly. Although I'm not sure both possibilities can exist in the same game. It's more likely that you'd have, say, a Basic set for one crowd and an Advanced set for the other...

There's nothing wrong with simple or complex playstyles. Mixing them up into the same game and tying them to particular archtypes was a flaw in D&D - not that I think "newbie-friendly" and "for advanced players only" was ever intended in the designs of the fighter and magic-user. It was just a side-effect of magic being cool and special and reality-bending.

Nah, 3e/d20 provides lots of ranges for mixing play style preferences in one party compatibly.

Wizards can adventure next to warlocks and those contrasting PC playstyle preferences can be accomodated. I'm in a game where the party has both and it works fine.

In general I don't need others to play according to the same character preferences as me to be in a fun D&D game together.

 

[Lanefan]

Before play, I'd like to see all classes be at the same (VERY LOW!) complexity level - char-gen should be the easiest and quickest part of the game. I don't subscribe at all to 3e's "build" theory...

In play, I'd rather see some variety in complexity level between classes, for a few reasons:

1. A tentative new player can be introduced via a simple-to-play class. For me, it was 1e Ranger.

2. Experienced players can find a complexity level that suits their style and usual amount of beer consumption.

3. If I'm running two characters at once (my usual modus operandi), I'd prefer that at least one of them be nice and simple. In 3e, near the end of my run I was playing two warrior types - a heavy Ranger and a Fighter - and they were both getting bloody complicated.

That said, I've tried where I can to simplify things in my 1e game. Remains to be seen if the latest round of changes will stand up to the long haul.

Lanefan

 

[TerraDave]

For 4E you could use the npc templates to make "starter charecters"...(basically with 1 at will, 1 encounter, maybe one other power, like a daily or class power).

Though my guess someone playing like that would want to take their training wheels off sooner rather then later.

 

[The Little Raven]

You want a dumb arcanist, play a Sorcerer.

We're not talking about the character having to be smart to be a wizard (that's a given). We're talking about a player having to be smart to play a wizard, which I disagree with.

 

[Remathilis]

I'm there with you 100%, S'mon.

I have no problem playing dumb or smart fighters ("Og" or Ulysses, dumb or smart rogues (a thug or Grey Mouser)...but a Wizard ought to be intelligent.

Unwise (low Wis)? Quite possibly, but definitely a powerful intellect.

You want a dumb arcanist, play a Sorcerer.

You realize he was talking about the PLAYERS Intelligence, not the characters.

Player 1: Ok, we have a cleric and a ranger, we need a mage.
Player 2: I'll play the mage!
Player 1: Sorry Tom, you're too dumb to play a wizard. You can be a fighter instead.
Player 2: ....

EDIT: And I see Raven brought up the same point...

 

[Reynard]

You realize he was talking about the PLAYERS Intelligence, not the characters.

Player 1: Ok, we have a cleric and a ranger, we need a mage.
Player 2: I'll play the mage!
Player 1: Sorry Tom, you're too dumb to play a wizard. You can be a fighter instead.
Player 2: ....

EDIT: And I see Raven brought up the same point...

Alternatively

Player 1: Ok, we have a cleric and a ranger, we need a mage.
Player 2: Man, I don't want to play the mage. Keeping track of all those spells sucks.
Player 1: Why don't you play a warlock instead?
Player 2: Cool!

But, then, that'd be looking at the situation with optimism, which is strictly forbidden.

 

[Greg K]

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 dislike 4e (despite thinking it has a few good changes), but my dislike has nothing to do with the open ended wizards, clerics and druids. Open ended wizards, clerics, and druids are actually one of my complaints of 3e as a player and a DM.

In the 3e games that I run, I actually remove the open-eneded nature of those three classes. Clerics and druids use spontaneous divine casting (Unearthed Arcana) and their spell lists are a combination of a small generic spell list shared by all clerics and additional spells based on the deity's domain. Wizards are also reigned in through various means depending upon the campaign (I also am considering not even using wizards in a campaign).

As for increased power from the addition of spells from various supplements is handled by being being highly selective about which spells are allowed into the game (I think of all the WOTC supplemental spells, I might allow about dozen).