I Like The Simple Fighter [ducks]

[BobTheNob]

This is a story meant to parallel this situation.

I play diablo 3. The other day I went to the official forums to see what people thought about the games balance. Suffice to say, they are the most ridiculously childish forums I have ever seen (man I love ENWorld, at least here people think before posting). Now, whilst in there forums, something became clear. There is a real "your opinion doesnt count if you not playing the highest levels of inferno difficulty" thing going on, with everyone agreeing with everyone else on this point. If you ever post anything about difficulty under inferno, you are basically, repeatedly, told to shut-up.

The funny thing about this is, the guys posting on this forum are the guys that have reached inferno difficulty, and at the same time, Blizzard released stat that this is less than 2% of the player base. So, what you have is a forum filled with the most elite players agreeing that they are the only ones who know enough about the game to make suggestions as to what is best for it. They completely miss the point that what is best for the game is probably what applies to the other 98% of players....

Whats this got to do with this discussion? Well, most of the time forum posters are those dedicated to their passion, as most here would be. Unfortunately, it leaves me a little bit hesitant to take on what Im reading, as everyone here falls into a certain narrow sub-set of players.

But what about the rest of the players, the ones who are casual and dont post on these forums (like the other 6 guys I play with)? Their opinions are just as valid as yours and me, but its not them we are hearing from on a point such as this. So maybe I would ask another question. What about the non-posting D&D players....what do you think they would say on this topic?

 

[shadow]

I much rather would have a simple fighter. This does NOT mean that I want a class that can just swing a sword. I wouldn't mind seeing bonuses to weapons and armor or different martial maneuvers. What I don't want to see is a huge selection of feats that I have to mull over when creating a character, or having to be reliant on using the right "power" at the right time lest you suck in combat. Even as an experienced player, I want a class that I can sit down and play without relying on bookkeeping or spending forever picking the right set of feats to optimize my character.

 

[Kavon]

There is nothing wrong with liking the Fighter to be simple (and the Wizard etc to be complex), but there is also nothing wrong with wanting the ability to play a Fighter that is complex (or a Wizard etc that is simple).

What I really have a problem with, though, is this point of view that if someone were to want a complex Fighter (or simple Wizard etc), they should just go play that other class that is also a melee combatant (or spellcaster) that has the desired level of complexity.. The problem here is that those other classes aren't the Fighter class (or Wizard class, etc).

If we're going down that road, there should be a Fighter [simple] and a Fighter [complex], not just Fighter and 'that other class that is not a Fighter' (or Wizard [complex] and Wizard [simple] instead of Wizard and Warlock, or what have you).

The point is easier to come to with the Wizard vs Warlock example.
Let's say the Warlock (with all its niche protecting abilities and inherent flavor) was the simple arcane spellcaster.
Now let's say you wanted to play a simple Wizard. But there's only a complex Wizard? Yeah, you go play that Warlock class over there, have fun with your character concept!

This is not the point of the next edition of D&D, which gives people options to play the way they want, right?

Having simple classes and complex classes is not the answer to this, since people need to be able to play the class they want (with all the niche specific things a class offers) regardless of complexity. Having seperate simple and complex version of the same class is stupid - just make it one class and design its options right.


In a similar vein (and I've posted about this before), why does the Wizard class have to be married to the Vancian system?
I can understand wanting different classes to have different spell systems to make them feel different, but I really dislike being forced into playing a class in a way that I would dislike, simply because certain people say that it should have this system of spellcasting.
The Wizard, the idea of what the class is, should not equal Vancian magic just because there are people that are so used to it being so.

Should the Wizard have the option to utilize the Vancian way of magic? Absolutely!
Should I be forced to use Vancian magic if I want to play a learned bookish spellcaster? Let's hope not!

Should the Fighter have the option to keep it simple? Absolutely.
Should I be forced to play with limited options compared to other classes if I want to play a Fighter? Again, let's hope not.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Should the Wizard have the option to utilize the Vancian way of magic? Absolutely!
Should I be forced to use Vancian magic if I want to play a learned bookish spellcaster? Let's hope not!

A reasonable perspective.

Do you think that classes should have any built-in flavour at all, or should they just be a collection of mechanics? It seems to me it might be easier to detach the wizard from his spellbook, and the warlock from his pact, than to create new mechanical options. So warlock would be the choice for a simple caster, but a warlock could get his powers from a spellbook, if you wanted.

 

[nomotog]

Why not a simple wizard? Or a simple cleric?

I don't understand why the fighter, and the fighter alone, has to bear the stigma of the "class for starting players".

And... if you have a new player who wants to play a wizard?
("no sorry, you are a new player, you have to play the fighter")

And... if you have a veteran player who wants to play a fighter?
("no sorry, you are too advanced to play the fighter, play the wizard instead")

I want my standard fighter to have as many options as spellcasters.
It's ok (actually, is a very good idea) to have a simple character for the occasional new player. Just make this "simple character" option available for every class.

How do you make a simple wizard? I like the idea of a simple wizard and cleric. Just wondering how you would do it.

 

[Kavon]

A reasonable perspective.

Do you think that classes should have any built-in flavour at all, or should they just be a collection of mechanics?

Hmm.. Perhaps. I'm not sure this would pan out that well, though, since being a warlock actually means something..

If classes didn't have any built in flavour at all, the way classes are presented would have to change as well. Instead of flavorful names that gives you an idea of what they are, you would have to give all the classes generic names instead. Not sure this is going to happen, or be desirable.

It seems to me it might be easier to detach the wizard from his spellbook, and the warlock from his pact, than to create new mechanical options. So warlock would be the choice for a simple caster, but a warlock could get his powers from a spellbook, if you wanted.

At the end of the day, is "Wizard" Vancian? Is "spellbook" Vancian?
IMO, neither of these is necessarily correct.

Is the Vancian system not just one of many different ways for a spellcaster to deliver his spells into the world? I can see it existing alongside other ways, other disciplines within the bookish Wizarding world, so to speak.
It's no stretch of the imagination that Wizards were to delevope several ways to make "spells" happen. I can see the Wizard being given several different options to cast spells (one of them being the "simple" improvisation option, which is miraculously balanced with the rest of the game).


Now that I think of it (Vancian magic), I personally have problems with Wizards using it (it does not gel with my view of what a wizard is), but I can see a deity granting spells in a Vancian manner..

Sort of like:
Priest: "Oh Lord, please bless me with your splendor."
Deity: "I grant you this gift for today!" *plants spell in priest's head*

This actually makes some sort of sense to me. YMMV *shrugs*

Edit: That's funny.. I meant Wizards of the Coast in that sentence about delevoping several ways to make "spells" happen.. But it looks better as Wizards now that I look back at it

 

[Agamon]

How do you make a simple wizard? I like the idea of a simple wizard and cleric. Just wondering how you would do it.

Honestly? A simple wizard is a pew-pew PC, a simple cleric is a martial healer (with simple healing that isn't spells). In other words, warlock and paladin. They can be reskinned (or background/theme-d) into bookish and priestly to be a wizard and cleric, but they do already exist in concept.

 

[functionciccio]

How do you make a simple wizard? I like the idea of a simple wizard and cleric. Just wondering how you would do it.

Well, I think that the 4E versions of those classes are pretty much a good starting point (with their limited, defined and overall effective spell choices).

The more "advanced" classes can use the vancian system.

 

[pogre]

What I really have a problem with, though, is this point of view that if someone were to want a complex Fighter (or simple Wizard etc), they should just go play that other class that is also a melee combatant (or spellcaster) that has the desired level of complexity.. The problem here is that those other classes aren't the Fighter class (or Wizard class, etc).
<snip>

Well, we obviously disagree and that's OK - I see where you are coming from. I think separate classes is the easier route for new players. I'm fine with the concept of a simple class and a complex class, but I want them to have different names. We're really not that far apart if we look at this way:

ridiculous example
Simple Fighter = Fighter
Complex Fighter = Gladiator

Or reverse the names for all I care.

It's a minor point, but I think important for new and casual players.

 

[functionciccio]

What about the non-posting D&D players....what do you think they would say on this topic?

Well, I have 5 players, and as you say, none of them posts here (or in other RPG forums). We are currently playing 4E.

One player is a fairly new player, so he has actually nothing to say (4E is the only system he knows, and he is still learning it).

The other 4 players are kind of veteran players. One of them started when 3E started. The other 3 players, like me, started with 2E (AD&D).
Across those editions, two of them always played the "bmx bandit" while the other two always played the "angel summoner".

Right now, the ex-"bmx bandit" guys would never ever "revert" to a 3E-system (like D&D Next seems to be right now) unless there are solid mechanincs that will let them play 4E-like martial characters.

The "angel summoners", as you might guess, are quite happy with the return of vancian magic (although they are ok with the insertion of at-will spells in said system). They do not care about what a martial character can or cannot do as they will never play such a character.