|
9 months ago ::
Sep 22, 2012 - 8:44PM
#111
|
|
|
And how do you expect to match the mechanical versatility of the wizard without complexity? Please, be detailed. I'm eager to hear it.
Simple yet powerful options usable often while balancing the versitility of the wizard on the other classes. Not letting the wizard set the bar.
The wizard might be better once or twice a day and shine in occasional rounds, but they will not match a fighter or rogue in their speciality. And not worrying about balancing the entire game based on how earlier editions played at the non-standard end cap levels that few people ever really reached. Yes, wizards were broken 2-3 times a day for 15% of levels two editions ago. So focus on changing wizards and not repeating that mistake.
WotC tried complex fighters. They embraced symetry in the name of balance. And people hated it. Sales tanked and now they have to gamble on a new edition and tank sale farther for two years while doing so. It failed. It was a mistake. Why repeat it?
Yes, it sucks for people who liked 4e fighters. There should be a class with a simmilar feel (battlemind or swordmage maybe) or later options that build the fighter into that. But the 4e fighter is not representational of the fighter when you look throughout the history of the game.
Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say? Spoiler:
Show
My Webcomic
Updated Tuesday and Thursday
Read my blog on the WotC Community Site (updated irregularly to avoid spamming the "Featured Blogger" list).
You can follow me on Twitter: "@DnDJester"
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 22, 2012 - 8:45PM
#112
|
Date Joined:
May 19, 2011
|
Right, because as everyone knows, the Fighter was the main reason 4e stopped production and 5e is in the works.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 22, 2012 - 8:56PM
#113
|
|
|
And how do you expect to match the mechanical versatility of the wizard without complexity? Please, be detailed. I'm eager to hear it.
Simple yet powerful options usable often while balancing the versitility of the wizard on the other classes. Not letting the wizard set the bar.
The wizard might be better once or twice a day and shine in occasional rounds, but they will not match a fighter or rogue in their speciality. And not worrying about balancing the entire game based on how earlier editions played at the non-standard end cap levels that few people ever really reached. Yes, wizards were broken 2-3 times a day for 15% of levels two editions ago. So focus on changing wizards and not repeating that mistake.
WotC tried complex fighters. They embraced symetry in the name of balance. And people hated it. Sales tanked and now they have to gamble on a new edition and tank sale farther for two years while doing so. It failed. It was a mistake. Why repeat it?
Yes, it sucks for people who liked 4e fighters. There should be a class with a simmilar feel (battlemind or swordmage maybe) or later options that build the fighter into that. But the 4e fighter is not representational of the fighter when you look throughout the history of the game.
You're implying the only way to have complex fighters is to have the mechanical sameness that was 4e. That's not what anyone is asking for. ****, I still play 3e over 4e because me and my group didn't like how everyone felt the same. But you can have characters capable of doing different things in different ways using different mechanics, while still having similar levels of versatility/power. In terms of power/complexity, I'd rather have something like the Warblade and Beguiler as opposed to the Fighter and Wizard.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 22, 2012 - 8:57PM
#114
|
|
|
The answer to both is the same: because they were the classes with the most simplicity/complexity for the first 30 years of the game, so making a class with a similar level of complexity/similarity helps make the class "feel" appropriate. A simple wizard class would not "feel" like a D&D wizard and would alienate fans of the wizard. And WotC cannot afford to alienate any more fans.
Ah, so "Because it's how it's always been done.".
Yup. When you're making a "best of" albums there are going to be a lot of oldies and classics. That's the nature of the beast.
And how would a simple Fighter and a simple Wizard with the option to add more complexity to each alienate anyone? It's explicitly givien everyone the option to play what they want.
That's why we have the warlock. And because a simple wizard wouldn't necessarily "feel" like a wizard. Changing the wizard too much is the exact same thing as the complexity patch fighters got going into 4e. A complex-ectomy for wizards is repeating the mistakes of the past.
That said, while the wizard should be the most complicate of the base classes, it shouldn't to too inherently complicated in the base game. It should be comparatively complicated to the other 3 classes, but still simple compared to mid-complexity classes from other editions. The base game should be pretty damn simple.
I agree that there should be more complex options made available for interested parties, but there needs to be diversity in the base game for people who don't want options.
And there's no reason the Wizard should be the only class with complexity and the Fighter delegated to "Newbie Class." What if a Newbie got into the game because he wants to play a magic-user? Oh well too bad Fighter until you've had x amount of fun before you are ready to cast?
There should be simple and complex options for at least the Big 4 classes.
The term "newbie class" is offensive. Not everyone likes options or choices in combat, and not everyone handles complexity the same. Some people want to just show up and play. Others want to focus on other aspects of the character. Hence the diversity of play styles. That doesn't make them a newbie.
However, if you have complex and simple versions of 4 classes you really have 8 classes, or a whole lot of extra options. Having to choose between complex and simplicity is an extra choice in an already potentially overwhelming process. Options are good, but not necessarily in the base game. And, again, the base game is the equivalent of the starter set. It needs to be bare bones and simple. Alternate classes is pushing it.
Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say?Spoiler:
Show
My Webcomic
Updated Tuesday and Thursday
Read my blog on the WotC Community Site (updated irregularly to avoid spamming the "Featured Blogger" list).
You can follow me on Twitter: "@DnDJester"
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 22, 2012 - 9:01PM
#115
|
|
|
Right, because as everyone knows, the Fighter was the main reason 4e stopped production and 5e is in the works.
Class design was a major complaint yes. So much so that they reversed it for Essentials and the current designers have spoken out against it several times.
There wasn't a single reason 4e failed, and many of the reasons had nothing to do with the game design. But you have to be careful and remember th mistakes of the past.
Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say?Spoiler:
Show
My Webcomic
Updated Tuesday and Thursday
Read my blog on the WotC Community Site (updated irregularly to avoid spamming the "Featured Blogger" list).
You can follow me on Twitter: "@DnDJester"
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 22, 2012 - 9:06PM
#116
|
|
|
I still play 3e over 4e because me and my group didn't like how everyone felt the same. But you can have characters capable of doing different things in different ways using different mechanics, while still having similar levels of versatility/power. In terms of power/complexity, I'd rather have something like the Warblade and Beguiler as opposed to the Fighter and Wizard.
Okay, devil's advocate here.
You don't sound like a big fan of the fighter (or wizard) in past editions. Should you really be the person fighters are designed around then? You wouldn't want players who weren't fans of the warblade orbeguiler designing those classes. The fighte should first and foremost be designed for those people that love the fighter, get excited about the fighter, and choose the fighter first. Those are the target audience. And when they're happy you can see what else can be done.
Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say?Spoiler:
Show
My Webcomic
Updated Tuesday and Thursday
Read my blog on the WotC Community Site (updated irregularly to avoid spamming the "Featured Blogger" list).
You can follow me on Twitter: "@DnDJester"
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 22, 2012 - 9:15PM
#117
|
|
|
I still play 3e over 4e because me and my group didn't like how everyone felt the same. But you can have characters capable of doing different things in different ways using different mechanics, while still having similar levels of versatility/power. In terms of power/complexity, I'd rather have something like the Warblade and Beguiler as opposed to the Fighter and Wizard.
Okay, devil's advocate here.
You don't sound like a big fan of the fighter (or wizard) in past editions. Should you really be the person fighters are designed around then? You wouldn't want players who weren't fans of the warblade orbeguiler designing those classes. The fighte should first and foremost be designed for those people that love the fighter, get excited about the fighter, and choose the fighter first. Those are the target audience. And when they're happy you can see what else can be done.
Because while I'm not a fan of the class design of older editions, I am a fan of the archtypes involved. I want to be able to play a martial warrior in core and not be dead weight to the group. In 3e I had to wait until late in the edition to be able to do so. If I can't do so from the launch in 5e I have no reason to play it.
The Wizard being overpowered is another issue on its own, but it is relatively easy for a player to hold himself back or limit himself to a narrow focus (a lot of Wizard players tend to do this anyway. I notice these tend to be the same ones who don't realize how overpowered the class is) than it is to expand a Fighter's options to bring him up to par. So I generally focus more on the "Bring Fighters up" end than on the "Bring Wizards down" end.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 22, 2012 - 9:20PM
#118
|
Date Joined:
May 19, 2011
|
That's why we have the warlock. And because a simple wizard wouldn't necessarily "feel" like a wizard.
So what do we get for complex Fighter?
The term "newbie class" is offensive.
Except it's exactly what you're advocating making the Fighter into.
Not everyone likes options or choices in combat, and not everyone handles complexity the same. Some people want to just show up and play. Others want to focus on other aspects of the character. Hence the diversity of play styles. That doesn't make them a newbie.
Hence why I want an option for both a simple and complex option for people who would use them.
Having to choose between complex and simplicity is an extra choice in an already potentially overwhelming process.
What. The entire point of having a simple class is so they only have that one choice to make, plus whatever little choices they egt for the simple class.
Options are good, but not necessarily in the base game. And, again, the base game is the equivalent of the starter set. It needs to be bare bones and simple. Alternate classes is pushing it.
Not really. Just need a simple option for the Big 4 with bare bones and as little complexity as possible, then if they want more complexity, they have the option to pick more complexity. If they don't, they simply ignore those options, so long as there is an option for them to play a more complex class.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 22, 2012 - 9:27PM
#119
|
|
|
While Fighters were once the most uncomplex class.. they are not anymore...
So why does this debate ONLY crop up around Fighter vs Wizard when the Rogue for instance lies at the very rock bottom of complexity or round to round options...
Also, by the inclusion of dex based fighters.. the rogue is massively marginalized..
As this goes... fighter will absorb everything that is not strictly spellcasting...
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 22, 2012 - 9:37PM
#120
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
And how do you expect to match the mechanical versatility of the wizard without complexity? Please, be detailed. I'm eager to hear it.
Simple yet powerful options usable often while balancing the versitility of the wizard on the other classes. Not letting the wizard set the bar.
The wizard might be better once or twice a day and shine in occasional rounds, but they will not match a fighter or rogue in their speciality. And not worrying about balancing the entire game based on how earlier editions played at the non-standard end cap levels that few people ever really reached. Yes, wizards were broken 2-3 times a day for 15% of levels two editions ago. So focus on changing wizards and not repeating that mistake.
WotC tried complex fighters. They embraced symetry in the name of balance. And people hated it. Sales tanked and now they have to gamble on a new edition and tank sale farther for two years while doing so. It failed. It was a mistake. Why repeat it?
Yes, it sucks for people who liked 4e fighters. There should be a class with a simmilar feel (battlemind or swordmage maybe) or later options that build the fighter into that. But the 4e fighter is not representational of the fighter when you look throughout the history of the game.
Fallacy Alert:
1) Sales did not tank because people didn't like complex fighters. Sales tanked (in so far as the fighter alone was the cause) because the specific implementation was jarring and dissociative.
2) Making them complex does not require embracing symetry. There is more than one way to achieve complexity.
What I see is people clamoring FOR a complex fighter - just not one in the 4E mold.
Carl
|
|
|
