Casters definitely have a higher complexity floor.
And I simply do not agree with you.
What you're describing is 'more work'. Not 'greater complexity'.
Let us define complexity then. The Cambridge dictionary cites definition one of "complex" (the definition for complexity just refers to the word complex) as "involving many different but unrelated parts. It cites definition two as "difficult to understand or find an answer to due to have multiple parts."
Starting with definition one, casters do often have multiple factors to keep track of. You need to balance your few spell slots over a large amount of time and many spells, balance your choices of spells to give you tools for mani situations, balance duration spells versus damage versus support, in addition to requiring a large amount of knowledge even at level 1. Contrast this with fighter who has only one resource to keep track of that does not need to be balanced between multiple uses, can take largely the same action every turn, and doesn't need to balance their choices with eachother to make sure they are prepared. I would definitely say that casters are "more complex" as a measure more factors to strategize, balance, and keep track of.
Then looking at definition two, casters are definitely harder to understand, in large part due to it's many factors. To play a caster effectively, you need to understand many facets of the rules and mechanics, and have a good grasp of the strategy behind choosing all the spells. Otherwise you could be left with entirely concentration spells (this has in fact happened to one of my players who didn't think about the spells in relation to each other, and didn't fully understand concentration). Not to say that new players can't play casters, but it take more effort, knowledge, and strategical thinking. It is harder, ie it takes more effort and time, to "understand" or effectively play a caster. This would make it more complex by definition two as well.
If we wanted to look at complexity ceiling, we can do this as well. We can look at definition one purely mathematicaly by measuring the number of permutations of each class. Fighters make the choice of fighting style (6 options), martial archetype (3 options PHB or 11 options total), and 7 ability scores increases/feats (78 options PHB or 117 options total) for a total of 1.8*10^14 options PHB or 2.0*10^16 options total.
Wizard on the other hand has arcane tradition (8 options PHB or 14 options total), 5 ability scores improvement/feats (78 options PHB or 117 options total), and 25 spells prepared (215 PHB or 402 total) for a total of 4.7 * 10^68 options PHB or 3.9 * 10^76 options total. Clearly, wizards are exponentially more complex at level 20 when it comes to character creation. And, not only do wizards have trillions of times the number character builds as fighters, the decisions themselves have more influence on each other, leading to a larger amount of thought required. These decisions also cite rules and conditions across the board, so significant knowledge is required.
Then of course with 25 spells you have a lot more options in combat, with far more complicated effects that have many different uses. You need to consider if debuffing a opponent, dealing single target damage, or dealing AOE damage is best while keeping track of concentration and managing your limited spell slots.
Tieing this to the original discussion, both qualitative and quantitatively, caster have a higher complexity floor and ceiling. While they both have some degree of customizability, you can't play a caster effectively without making many decisions and learn a significant amount of the rules, and it's hard to have a martial with the sheer number of decisions, resource management, and versitility of a caster. Every player deserves to be able to play the character they want regardless of how much thought and time they want to put into understanding the mechanics, so there should be both simple and complex options for both casters and martials.
You could just give martial characters a few new choices.
Instead of just the attack option you can add in disarm, defend, and move the defender. Depending on the d20 role and how high you are over the defenders AC you can choose something more fancy like the above.
Disarm is simple. Role 10 over the defenders AC and you can disarmed him instead of causing damage. Defend is simple. Role over the defenders AC and you can add that difference to your AC or an allies AC next to you. Instead of causing damage. Move the defender is simple. Role 5 over the defenders AC and you can move him 5ft in any direction, you just have to stay within 5 ft of him at the end of your attack.
You could call these maneuvers instead of feats and let anyone who does melee fighting do them at all levels. Then again those choices could already exist and the OP is really just looking for something more advantageous.
As for spell casters being to complex or slow. Well I have seen straight fighters take longer deciding on what they want to do.
Disarm is simple. Role 10 over the defenders AC and you can disarmed him instead of causing damage.
Defend is simple. Role over the defenders AC and you can add that difference to your AC or an allies AC next to you. Instead of causing damage.
Move the defender is simple. Role 5 over the defenders AC and you can move him 5ft in any direction, you just have to stay within 5 ft of him at the end of your attack.
Disarm? Like a contested Strength check to take a weapon out of an opponent's hand?
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Disarm is simple. Role 10 over the defenders AC and you can disarmed him instead of causing damage.
Defend is simple. Role over the defenders AC and you can add that difference to your AC or an allies AC next to you. Instead of causing damage.
Move the defender is simple. Role 5 over the defenders AC and you can move him 5ft in any direction, you just have to stay within 5 ft of him at the end of your attack.
Disarm? Like a contested Strength check to take a weapon out of an opponent's hand?
Move the defender? Almost like you're shoving them?
These already exist my guy.
The problem is they're not designed to mesh well with existing actions, so they're not very viable. It takes your action the move the target 5 feet... Unless theirs a cliff or there's some other rare situation, it's almost never better to shove then to simply attack. The situation is worse for dodging, not to mention that dodging can't protect someone else.
Options = Complexity: As a GM you have many things to deal with, when I GM I often remember that players are not their PC's and PC's are not the player. So if I am on the ball I will try and remind the player of what their character might know or not know and give them the option to change actions or maybe even require a change.
So in the case of a player not remembering or understanding concentration or another rule, if I am on the ball I would take some time out a explain it to them and what their new action would mean. I have been gaming for a long time and this is not always how I have GM'ed or even if the GM allows it for me to help out new(ish) players. There is also the case of when do you let the player play and is the GM interfering with player freedom, arguments. But generally I have found that players have had positive views when I the GM explain their PC's knowledge of actions or events and understand but not like when their (player) knowledge is not what their PC would have. For example a new monster that has magic immunity, would the PC know about it or does the player know about it because the read the entry or heard about it in some way? Would the spell caster be able to identify what magic immunity is vs make a spell save?.
To me options do not necessarily make more complexity but in some games it can.
"Barbarians are secretly really complicated" seems like such a weird hill to to die on.
Also if having more things to decide between and moving parts to manage isn't complexity, then what is it? It almost feels like Acromos has an entirely different definition of the word than other people in this thread.
Eh - I think you'll find I'm not the one storming the hill, out of breath, wounded and feeling the breath (well, metaphorically speaking) of the reaper on the back of my neck.
I'm the dude at the top, with archer cover, stakes and trenches, and a long spear.
What you're talking about it busywork. Complexity is difficult, complicated. Busywork is just a long list of options - irrelevant to the situation - that you sort through trying to find that one spell that can fix everything. Let me tell you, if I'd had a gold piece for every time the mage spent 10 minutes of everyone's time, then finally cast fireball (which was his first impulse) anyways ... I could buy Waterdeep.
Casters definitely have a higher complexity floor.
And I simply do not agree with you.
What you're describing is 'more work'. Not 'greater complexity'.
Let us define complexity then. The Cambridge dictionary cites definition one of "complex" (the definition for complexity just refers to the word complex) as "involving many different but unrelated parts. It cites definition two as "difficult to understand or find an answer to due to have multiple parts."
Starting with definition one, casters do often have multiple factors to keep track of. You need to balance your few spell slots over a large amount of time and many spells, balance your choices of spells to give you tools for mani situations, balance duration spells versus damage versus support, in addition to requiring a large amount of knowledge even at level 1. Contrast this with fighter who has only one resource to keep track of that does not need to be balanced between multiple uses, can take largely the same action every turn, and doesn't need to balance their choices with eachother to make sure they are prepared. I would definitely say that casters are "more complex" as a measure more factors to strategize, balance, and keep track of.
Then looking at definition two, casters are definitely harder to understand, in large part due to it's many factors. To play a caster effectively, you need to understand many facets of the rules and mechanics, and have a good grasp of the strategy behind choosing all the spells. Otherwise you could be left with entirely concentration spells (this has in fact happened to one of my players who didn't think about the spells in relation to each other, and didn't fully understand concentration). Not to say that new players can't play casters, but it take more effort, knowledge, and strategical thinking. It is harder, ie it takes more effort and time, to "understand" or effectively play a caster. This would make it more complex by definition two as well.
If we wanted to look at complexity ceiling, we can do this as well. We can look at definition one purely mathematicaly by measuring the number of permutations of each class. Fighters make the choice of fighting style (6 options), martial archetype (3 options PHB or 11 options total), and 7 ability scores increases/feats (78 options PHB or 117 options total) for a total of 1.8*10^14 options PHB or 2.0*10^16 options total.
Wizard on the other hand has arcane tradition (8 options PHB or 14 options total), 5 ability scores improvement/feats (78 options PHB or 117 options total), and 25 spells prepared (215 PHB or 402 total) for a total of 4.7 * 10^68 options PHB or 3.9 * 10^76 options total. Clearly, wizards are exponentially more complex at level 20 when it comes to character creation. And, not only do wizards have trillions of times the number character builds as fighters, the decisions themselves have more influence on each other, leading to a larger amount of thought required. These decisions also cite rules and conditions across the board, so significant knowledge is required.
Then of course with 25 spells you have a lot more options in combat, with far more complicated effects that have many different uses. You need to consider if debuffing a opponent, dealing single target damage, or dealing AOE damage is best while keeping track of concentration and managing your limited spell slots.
Tieing this to the original discussion, both qualitative and quantitatively, caster have a higher complexity floor and ceiling. While they both have some degree of customizability, you can't play a caster effectively without making many decisions and learn a significant amount of the rules, and it's hard to have a martial with the sheer number of decisions, resource management, and versitility of a caster. Every player deserves to be able to play the character they want regardless of how much thought and time they want to put into understanding the mechanics, so there should be both simple and complex options for both casters and martials.
Same argument as before. 'Oh, it's so complicated to play a mage, I have so much bookkeeping and so many options and so much power, and how about all the moral considerations, and where's my spellbook, and can I use this 10' pole as my arcane focus!'
I'm sorry, but I'm just still not impressed. As a martial character, you have to worry about real stuff. 'Limited spellslots' isn't real stuff. Deciding between Hold Person or Fireball isn't real stuff. It's just busywork. If you run out of spellslots - wow, you're down to cantrips, scrolls and wands. I feel so bad for you.
The barbarian has to actually watch the map, figure out how the enemy is most likely to move on their turn, position himself accordingly, use Rage intelligently, manage hitpoints, and keep a pretty keen tally in his head - how much damage am I dealing, how much am I taking, which guy do I focus, who can hit me, who does the most damage? Should I use Reckless Attack? If the barbarian runs out of his limited ressource - he dies.
So sorry, but for all that text, I'm just still not buying it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
It's a common argument. "I have to worry about real stuff, like where I'm standing, who I'm hitting, and whether I can survive being where I currently am for another round! Mages are all a bunch of time-wasting nambies who just stand behind a rock and cower while casting their one spell!"
Well, here's one for ye: Mages have to worry about where they're standing, what they're casting, where they're casting it, whether they can maintain that spell where they are for another round, and what to do when the idiot meathead barbarian decides to Leeroy Jenkins into the enemy's prepared frontline and go down like a sack of crabs once again. Accusing all mage players of being myopic cowards is kinda like accusing all martial players of being braindead lemmings racing each other to zero HP - if you're doing either then you're playing your character wrong and that's a you issue, not a system issue.
When played correctly, mages have so many more options than martials in this game it's not funny, and the dichotomy only gets worse as level rises.
Acromos: Sorry, but for all that text of the complexity, that's what every class does. They all have to watch their Hit Points, they all have to see how much damage they're doing, they all have to assess what the enemies' future plans are. The only things that you mentioned that are unique or even especially relevant to Barbarians (as opposed to the other classes) are whether to Rage and whether to use Reckless attack. Two binary decisions. On the other hand, casters have to decide whether they want to heal, to manipulate the battlefield by throwing up a wall, to hold an enemy in place, to banish them to another dimension, to summon help, to teleport away, to buff an ally or to debuff an enemy, or to just do damage - and if so, is it worth just hammering one enemy or doing less damage but to many enemies using AoE?
Look, you can argue that casters are less complex than people portray. I think there's certainly truth to that, once you get the principles behind casting spells, they're all pretty easy and intuitive to play. The problem I'd point out is that the "once you get the principles behind castings spells" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence - you have to understand verbal, somatic and material components, you have to understand focuses, and how they apply to your class, you have to understand how your specific class learns spells, you have to understand spell slots and upcasting, and half a dozen other things. Once you get that down, you can pick up any caster and play them.
Compare that to the Barbarian's Rage, though - do you want to use one of your X Rages per day? Great, make sure you keep hitting people or it'll stop.
Barbarians really aren't that hard to play. Like all the classes, you can always add stuff on, but (assuming that they have the basics of doing checks etc down) I can teach someone to be a reasonably effective Barbarian in less than five minutes. I've done it, even. They won't be the bestest, baddest Barbarian around, but they'll be able to do their job well enough that I can comfortably support them while DMing. You can barely get started with the fundamentals of casters in the same period of time. If someone is brand new the game and they want to play a caster, I'll insist that they have an experienced player buddy with them because there's just so many considerations that I can't do it whole straddling the DM screen. It's a good long while to teach someone how to be a caster, and it takes several sessions for people to start to get the vision of them, that they do something more meaningful than cast Fireball as standard.
There's a good reason why I've spent who knows how long explaining how a spell or spells in general work on these boards to confused people, while I've spent only minutes total explaining the Barbarian features - it's just that much easier to pick up a Barbarian and play.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
It's a common argument. "I have to worry about real stuff, like where I'm standing, who I'm hitting, and whether I can survive being where I currently am for another round! Mages are all a bunch of time-wasting nambies who just stand behind a rock and cower while casting their one spell!"
Well, here's one for ye: Mages have to worry about where they're standing, what they're casting, where they're casting it, whether they can maintain that spell where they are for another round, and what to do when the idiot meathead barbarian decides to Leeroy Jenkins into the enemy's prepared frontline and go down like a sack of crabs once again. Accusing all mage players of being myopic cowards is kinda like accusing all martial players of being braindead lemmings racing each other to zero HP - if you're doing either then you're playing your character wrong and that's a you issue, not a system issue.
When played correctly, mages have so many more options than martials in this game it's not funny, and the dichotomy only gets worse as level rises.
The only thing I wouldn't agree with (or at least not completely agree), is that casters always have more options. There is a tiny window at the beginning, like level 1 and 2, where casters, or at least Wizards, can't really do much and martials rule. They start to overtake martials at around L3 and by L5 they're flying ahead. For most of the adventure, it's as you say - it's not even funny.
Wizard: Shall I send this creep to Hell? Or wall him up? Or I could just barbeque him?
Barbarian: Shall I hit him with my pointy metal stick my or shall I get get angry, and hit a bit harder with my pointy metal stick?
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Disarm is simple. Role 10 over the defenders AC and you can disarmed him instead of causing damage.
Defend is simple. Role over the defenders AC and you can add that difference to your AC or an allies AC next to you. Instead of causing damage.
Move the defender is simple. Role 5 over the defenders AC and you can move him 5ft in any direction, you just have to stay within 5 ft of him at the end of your attack.
Disarm? Like a contested Strength check to take a weapon out of an opponent's hand?
Move the defender? Almost like you're shoving them?
These already exist my guy.
The problem is they're not designed to mesh well with existing actions, so they're not very viable. It takes your action the move the target 5 feet... Unless theirs a cliff or there's some other rare situation, it's almost never better to shove then to simply attack. The situation is worse for dodging, not to mention that dodging can't protect someone else.
Yes, Dodge, Shove, and all of those other irregular options need to be improved upon and expanded. However, why should we add those options to the base Fighter class when we can just improve the versions of them that are in the core rules and are available to everyone, not just Fighter?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
Casters definitely have a higher complexity floor.
And I simply do not agree with you.
What you're describing is 'more work'. Not 'greater complexity'.
[snip snip snip]
Same argument as before. 'Oh, it's so complicated to play a mage, I have so much bookkeeping and so many options and so much power, and how about all the moral considerations, and where's my spellbook, and can I use this 10' pole as my arcane focus!'
I'm sorry, but I'm just still not impressed. As a martial character, you have to worry about real stuff. 'Limited spellslots' isn't real stuff. Deciding between Hold Person or Fireball isn't real stuff. It's just busywork. If you run out of spellslots - wow, you're down to cantrips, scrolls and wands. I feel so bad for you.
The barbarian has to actually watch the map, figure out how the enemy is most likely to move on their turn, position himself accordingly, use Rage intelligently, manage hitpoints, and keep a pretty keen tally in his head - how much damage am I dealing, how much am I taking, which guy do I focus, who can hit me, who does the most damage? Should I use Reckless Attack? If the barbarian runs out of his limited ressource - he dies.
So sorry, but for all that text, I'm just still not buying it.
Siiiigh. No one here has mentioned anything about a spellcaster's complex "moral considerations," and I don't think I heard anything about a 10-foot pole. Not only are you dismissing the fact that spellcasters have numerous other aspects aside from just picking which spells to use in combat, but you seem to be dismissing complexity as "busywork," despite the fact that you seem to be using the words as synonyms.
Casters also have to manage hit points and position themselves in appropriate places. In fact, basically all of the things you just listed that martials "have" to keep track of are also all things casters have to do too. The only exception is Rage, but (a) spellcasters have much more complicated mechanics than that to deal with, and (b) what Barbarian "intelligently" decides when to enter their uncontrollable, frothing, madman rage?
Anyways, as other users have said, arguing that "Barbarian is secretly super complicated but just doesn't show it" seems to be a really poor way of spending your finite, resource-limited Rage.
Same argument as before. 'Oh, it's so complicated to play a mage, I have so much bookkeeping and so many options and so much power
It appears we have reached a standstill. I have defined complexity using multiple definitions from the dictionary, yet you don't accept those definitions. They're just "more book keeping" and "more work" not complexity. If you stand a fundamentally different definition of complex that the definition found in the dictionary, I'm afraid there is nothing more I can do to convince you. I will drop the debate here because if we're debating whether or not more decisions, more options, and more interplay between these options is considered complexity cannot be logically argued further than citing dictionary definitions, which has already been done.
However, whether or not you call it "complexity" you yourself said that casters have more bookkeeping and more work. So perhaps a better way of phrasing what has been said in a way that both of us can agree on would be, "work vs. ease: a fundamental issue", in which we consider whether martial should have an increased number of options but also increased workload to match casters, casters have a reduced number of options and reduced workload to match martial, things should be kept the same, or some other combination of these. The word "complex" is not really central to this discussion. You agree that martials have less options and less work. Is this good or bad? Splitting hairs over the exact definition of a word is unnecessary.
Its funny to me that every time a poll like this comes up more complex wins every time and its usually not close.
That being said if i could have voted for two i would have done more complex fighters and less complex spell casters. As in I think the fighter as the combat expert should be a complex martial, if people really have a bug up their but around it being the fighter fine add another class fighter 2 electric boogaloo this time we dont suck. but there could be a spell caster option that is crazy simple like a pyromancer class that basically shoots flame blasts and flame melee strikes with a Arcane Master sub class that has a arcane master pool with flaming disarms, and flaming shoves and trips, a champion of flame sub class etc.
Subclasses do help do this somewhat (eg. you could take battlemaster fighter or champion fighter), but it could go further. A battlemaster is still just attacking 9/10 turns, and even the most basic subclasses of spellcastes are complicated.
IMO, this stems from the fact that subclass impact is not large due to how many features a subclass consists of. Ideally, 20 levels could be comprised of roughly 7 general features (including background), 7 class features, and 7 subclass features. But we only have four subclass features, and there's not much that can be crammed into that amount. Also, WotC design subclasses around a theme or fantasy rather than function. I could imagine a simple subclass for wizards: Sculpt Spells to let you ignore friendly fire, then a feature to let you ignore partial cover, a feature to let you ignore resistances, a feature to ignore line of sight - and you get yourself a careless blaster who can blast things without bothering much about tactics, positioning, or even knowing what they blast. But this is a dedicated purposeful design built around function, something that community doesn't receive too well because "roles are bad".
I don't think you need more than 4, but each of those 4 levels would need to be far more significant that what weve seen so far.
Take battle master.
Lets say at level 3 you gain your battle master pool. Its 2d8 you can use it once on your turn and that is its only limitation. You could choose to do no maneuvers and just hit for 2d8. Or you could select from a list of maneuvers, let them choose 4-5. Have 10+ options for level 3, each of these maneuvers cost either 1d8 or 2d8 for example trip cost 1d8, when used once on your turn at level 3 you can hit for normal weapon damage+1d8+a trip effect. A 2d8 effect might be reducing the pool by 2d8 might give a stun effect, so you hit for weapon damage+stun effect. At level 6, your pool grows by 2d8 and you get access to level 6 maneuver which cost anywhere from 1-4 dice and you learn another 4-5 maneuvers, a 2 dice effect might be hit all enemies within 5' reach or 5' radius with ranged or for 3 dice within a 10 foot radius/reach. a 4 die effect might have a one round paralyze. Allow people to stack as many maneuvers as they want into a single attack as long as they have the dice to spend. Level 10/14 keep the trend going 6 dice then 8 dice, have 8 die effects be something crazy that fits for a 14th level character.
If for balance reason they need to limit the number of times you can use maneuvers that is fine, but even when expended they would still have the basic bonk of extra Xd8.
Nopes! Still just as wrong. Your claim remains that 'oooh, it requires so much mental acuity to play a caster, but martials are soooo easy'. And you are simply, plainly, wrong.
Tell me: What difference does it make that you have 25 spells, when the correct choice is simple as tying your shoelaces: Cast the spell with a Wis save against an enemy vulnerable to that, for instance.
Dropping a stinking cloud to - say - CC one group of enemies, blocking battlefield access to another so you can focus on a third isn't difficult. You could train monkeys to do it.
And I'm not saying it's hard to play a barbarian either. Just that they're equal. It makes no living difference. Casters are more time consuming, is all.
But I grant you this: We're not going to magically find agreement here - which is fine, btw. I'm not trying to convince you. I'm making the argument because it's part of this discussion, and without it, your (incorrect) view get's to stand unopposed =)
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Since it's become clear some have their minds made up and no facts will persuade them, this discussion may have reached it's end. Somehow having 4-5 options on how to deal with a threat is less complex than having 2 in some worlds. Somehow having options that include several enemies or a single enemy is simpler than having to choose a single target. Somehow taking what is on a sheet is more difficult and complex than sorting through sometimes dozens of options for what to choose.
In the vacuum sealed box that is the closed mind of someone absolutely convinced, no logic, fact or demonstration of either will break through, More impenetrable than a force cage, the locked in mind is invulnerable to all.
I said it before and will say it again, just for the sake of making noise. ALL classes are fairly complex if played well, with casters adding in more options in many cases to further complicate the decision making. Having to pick from 8 options is more complex than picking from 3, which is a fact, thus any differing opinions are wrong by default. See, others can take a firm stand as well, but some stands are supported by fact, while others are based on opinion.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
When building a game, more choices does not always make for a better experience for players. At some point you run into the problem of choice overload, and the player's satisfaction with what they decided to do with their characters goes down and the speed of play gets slower and slower making the experience worse for all involved. Where is that line? Somewhere above one or two options, but probably below a dozen. That is what playtesting is for. Personally, I think the fix is a mix of adding some extra unique abilities for martial characters to give them a niche casters can't touch, combined with a simplification of caster spell lists to make each more focused on one style of play instead of allowing every caster to handle every style (blaster, controller, healer, buffer, etc...).
I've only skimmed through this, so I'm sorry if it's been asked already.
But is it possible to modify a poll after its created and add more options? Because what I would really prefer is a new class added for Warriors that is vastly more complicated, and new classes added for both Mages and Priests that are vastly more simple. So everyone can get what they want. Some other people seem to feel the same.
I've already said what I feel about simplicity and complexity, and the various ways these terms are used, and the many ways you can introduce options without adding complexity, in other threads. I don't think any of that needs rehashing here too. So I'll stay out of that. But I'd like to answer the poll honestly.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Let us define complexity then. The Cambridge dictionary cites definition one of "complex" (the definition for complexity just refers to the word complex) as "involving many different but unrelated parts. It cites definition two as "difficult to understand or find an answer to due to have multiple parts."
Starting with definition one, casters do often have multiple factors to keep track of. You need to balance your few spell slots over a large amount of time and many spells, balance your choices of spells to give you tools for mani situations, balance duration spells versus damage versus support, in addition to requiring a large amount of knowledge even at level 1. Contrast this with fighter who has only one resource to keep track of that does not need to be balanced between multiple uses, can take largely the same action every turn, and doesn't need to balance their choices with eachother to make sure they are prepared. I would definitely say that casters are "more complex" as a measure more factors to strategize, balance, and keep track of.
Then looking at definition two, casters are definitely harder to understand, in large part due to it's many factors. To play a caster effectively, you need to understand many facets of the rules and mechanics, and have a good grasp of the strategy behind choosing all the spells. Otherwise you could be left with entirely concentration spells (this has in fact happened to one of my players who didn't think about the spells in relation to each other, and didn't fully understand concentration). Not to say that new players can't play casters, but it take more effort, knowledge, and strategical thinking. It is harder, ie it takes more effort and time, to "understand" or effectively play a caster. This would make it more complex by definition two as well.
If we wanted to look at complexity ceiling, we can do this as well. We can look at definition one purely mathematicaly by measuring the number of permutations of each class. Fighters make the choice of fighting style (6 options), martial archetype (3 options PHB or 11 options total), and 7 ability scores increases/feats (78 options PHB or 117 options total) for a total of 1.8*10^14 options PHB or 2.0*10^16 options total.
Wizard on the other hand has arcane tradition (8 options PHB or 14 options total), 5 ability scores improvement/feats (78 options PHB or 117 options total), and 25 spells prepared (215 PHB or 402 total) for a total of 4.7 * 10^68 options PHB or 3.9 * 10^76 options total. Clearly, wizards are exponentially more complex at level 20 when it comes to character creation. And, not only do wizards have trillions of times the number character builds as fighters, the decisions themselves have more influence on each other, leading to a larger amount of thought required. These decisions also cite rules and conditions across the board, so significant knowledge is required.
Then of course with 25 spells you have a lot more options in combat, with far more complicated effects that have many different uses. You need to consider if debuffing a opponent, dealing single target damage, or dealing AOE damage is best while keeping track of concentration and managing your limited spell slots.
Tieing this to the original discussion, both qualitative and quantitatively, caster have a higher complexity floor and ceiling. While they both have some degree of customizability, you can't play a caster effectively without making many decisions and learn a significant amount of the rules, and it's hard to have a martial with the sheer number of decisions, resource management, and versitility of a caster. Every player deserves to be able to play the character they want regardless of how much thought and time they want to put into understanding the mechanics, so there should be both simple and complex options for both casters and martials.
I am an average mathematics enjoyer.
>Extended Signature<
You could just give martial characters a few new choices.
Instead of just the attack option you can add in disarm, defend, and move the defender.
Depending on the d20 role and how high you are over the defenders AC you can choose something more fancy like the above.
Disarm is simple. Role 10 over the defenders AC and you can disarmed him instead of causing damage.
Defend is simple. Role over the defenders AC and you can add that difference to your AC or an allies AC next to you. Instead of causing damage.
Move the defender is simple. Role 5 over the defenders AC and you can move him 5ft in any direction, you just have to stay within 5 ft of him at the end of your attack.
You could call these maneuvers instead of feats and let anyone who does melee fighting do them at all levels. Then again those choices could already exist and the OP is really just looking for something more advantageous.
As for spell casters being to complex or slow. Well I have seen straight fighters take longer deciding on what they want to do.
Disarm? Like a contested Strength check to take a weapon out of an opponent's hand?
Defend? Like some sort of dodge ability?
Move the defender? Almost like you're shoving them?
These already exist my guy.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
The problem is they're not designed to mesh well with existing actions, so they're not very viable. It takes your action the move the target 5 feet... Unless theirs a cliff or there's some other rare situation, it's almost never better to shove then to simply attack. The situation is worse for dodging, not to mention that dodging can't protect someone else.
I am an average mathematics enjoyer.
>Extended Signature<
Options = Complexity: As a GM you have many things to deal with, when I GM I often remember that players are not their PC's and PC's are not the player. So if I am on the ball I will try and remind the player of what their character might know or not know and give them the option to change actions or maybe even require a change.
So in the case of a player not remembering or understanding concentration or another rule, if I am on the ball I would take some time out a explain it to them and what their new action would mean. I have been gaming for a long time and this is not always how I have GM'ed or even if the GM allows it for me to help out new(ish) players. There is also the case of when do you let the player play and is the GM interfering with player freedom, arguments. But generally I have found that players have had positive views when I the GM explain their PC's knowledge of actions or events and understand but not like when their (player) knowledge is not what their PC would have. For example a new monster that has magic immunity, would the PC know about it or does the player know about it because the read the entry or heard about it in some way? Would the spell caster be able to identify what magic immunity is vs make a spell save?.
To me options do not necessarily make more complexity but in some games it can.
Someone is starting to get it.
Thanks ArntitheBest.
Eh - I think you'll find I'm not the one storming the hill, out of breath, wounded and feeling the breath (well, metaphorically speaking) of the reaper on the back of my neck.
I'm the dude at the top, with archer cover, stakes and trenches, and a long spear.
What you're talking about it busywork. Complexity is difficult, complicated. Busywork is just a long list of options - irrelevant to the situation - that you sort through trying to find that one spell that can fix everything. Let me tell you, if I'd had a gold piece for every time the mage spent 10 minutes of everyone's time, then finally cast fireball (which was his first impulse) anyways ... I could buy Waterdeep.
Same argument as before. 'Oh, it's so complicated to play a mage, I have so much bookkeeping and so many options and so much power, and how about all the moral considerations, and where's my spellbook, and can I use this 10' pole as my arcane focus!'
I'm sorry, but I'm just still not impressed. As a martial character, you have to worry about real stuff. 'Limited spellslots' isn't real stuff. Deciding between Hold Person or Fireball isn't real stuff. It's just busywork. If you run out of spellslots - wow, you're down to cantrips, scrolls and wands. I feel so bad for you.
The barbarian has to actually watch the map, figure out how the enemy is most likely to move on their turn, position himself accordingly, use Rage intelligently, manage hitpoints, and keep a pretty keen tally in his head - how much damage am I dealing, how much am I taking, which guy do I focus, who can hit me, who does the most damage? Should I use Reckless Attack? If the barbarian runs out of his limited ressource - he dies.
So sorry, but for all that text, I'm just still not buying it.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Ah right, hit points, positioning, and maps, things that only exist for Barbarians and no one else.
It's a common argument. "I have to worry about real stuff, like where I'm standing, who I'm hitting, and whether I can survive being where I currently am for another round! Mages are all a bunch of time-wasting nambies who just stand behind a rock and cower while casting their one spell!"
Well, here's one for ye: Mages have to worry about where they're standing, what they're casting, where they're casting it, whether they can maintain that spell where they are for another round, and what to do when the idiot meathead barbarian decides to Leeroy Jenkins into the enemy's prepared frontline and go down like a sack of crabs once again. Accusing all mage players of being myopic cowards is kinda like accusing all martial players of being braindead lemmings racing each other to zero HP - if you're doing either then you're playing your character wrong and that's a you issue, not a system issue.
When played correctly, mages have so many more options than martials in this game it's not funny, and the dichotomy only gets worse as level rises.
Please do not contact or message me.
Acromos: Sorry, but for all that text of the complexity, that's what every class does. They all have to watch their Hit Points, they all have to see how much damage they're doing, they all have to assess what the enemies' future plans are. The only things that you mentioned that are unique or even especially relevant to Barbarians (as opposed to the other classes) are whether to Rage and whether to use Reckless attack. Two binary decisions. On the other hand, casters have to decide whether they want to heal, to manipulate the battlefield by throwing up a wall, to hold an enemy in place, to banish them to another dimension, to summon help, to teleport away, to buff an ally or to debuff an enemy, or to just do damage - and if so, is it worth just hammering one enemy or doing less damage but to many enemies using AoE?
Look, you can argue that casters are less complex than people portray. I think there's certainly truth to that, once you get the principles behind casting spells, they're all pretty easy and intuitive to play. The problem I'd point out is that the "once you get the principles behind castings spells" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence - you have to understand verbal, somatic and material components, you have to understand focuses, and how they apply to your class, you have to understand how your specific class learns spells, you have to understand spell slots and upcasting, and half a dozen other things. Once you get that down, you can pick up any caster and play them.
Compare that to the Barbarian's Rage, though - do you want to use one of your X Rages per day? Great, make sure you keep hitting people or it'll stop.
Barbarians really aren't that hard to play. Like all the classes, you can always add stuff on, but (assuming that they have the basics of doing checks etc down) I can teach someone to be a reasonably effective Barbarian in less than five minutes. I've done it, even. They won't be the bestest, baddest Barbarian around, but they'll be able to do their job well enough that I can comfortably support them while DMing. You can barely get started with the fundamentals of casters in the same period of time. If someone is brand new the game and they want to play a caster, I'll insist that they have an experienced player buddy with them because there's just so many considerations that I can't do it whole straddling the DM screen. It's a good long while to teach someone how to be a caster, and it takes several sessions for people to start to get the vision of them, that they do something more meaningful than cast Fireball as standard.
There's a good reason why I've spent who knows how long explaining how a spell or spells in general work on these boards to confused people, while I've spent only minutes total explaining the Barbarian features - it's just that much easier to pick up a Barbarian and play.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
The only thing I wouldn't agree with (or at least not completely agree), is that casters always have more options. There is a tiny window at the beginning, like level 1 and 2, where casters, or at least Wizards, can't really do much and martials rule. They start to overtake martials at around L3 and by L5 they're flying ahead. For most of the adventure, it's as you say - it's not even funny.
Wizard: Shall I send this creep to Hell? Or wall him up? Or I could just barbeque him?
Barbarian: Shall I hit him with my pointy metal stick my or shall I get get angry, and hit a bit harder with my pointy metal stick?
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Yes, Dodge, Shove, and all of those other irregular options need to be improved upon and expanded. However, why should we add those options to the base Fighter class when we can just improve the versions of them that are in the core rules and are available to everyone, not just Fighter?
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Siiiigh. No one here has mentioned anything about a spellcaster's complex "moral considerations," and I don't think I heard anything about a 10-foot pole. Not only are you dismissing the fact that spellcasters have numerous other aspects aside from just picking which spells to use in combat, but you seem to be dismissing complexity as "busywork," despite the fact that you seem to be using the words as synonyms.
Casters also have to manage hit points and position themselves in appropriate places. In fact, basically all of the things you just listed that martials "have" to keep track of are also all things casters have to do too. The only exception is Rage, but (a) spellcasters have much more complicated mechanics than that to deal with, and (b) what Barbarian "intelligently" decides when to enter their uncontrollable, frothing, madman rage?
Anyways, as other users have said, arguing that "Barbarian is secretly super complicated but just doesn't show it" seems to be a really poor way of spending your finite, resource-limited Rage.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.It appears we have reached a standstill. I have defined complexity using multiple definitions from the dictionary, yet you don't accept those definitions. They're just "more book keeping" and "more work" not complexity. If you stand a fundamentally different definition of complex that the definition found in the dictionary, I'm afraid there is nothing more I can do to convince you. I will drop the debate here because if we're debating whether or not more decisions, more options, and more interplay between these options is considered complexity cannot be logically argued further than citing dictionary definitions, which has already been done.
However, whether or not you call it "complexity" you yourself said that casters have more bookkeeping and more work. So perhaps a better way of phrasing what has been said in a way that both of us can agree on would be, "work vs. ease: a fundamental issue", in which we consider whether martial should have an increased number of options but also increased workload to match casters, casters have a reduced number of options and reduced workload to match martial, things should be kept the same, or some other combination of these. The word "complex" is not really central to this discussion. You agree that martials have less options and less work. Is this good or bad? Splitting hairs over the exact definition of a word is unnecessary.
I am an average mathematics enjoyer.
>Extended Signature<
Its funny to me that every time a poll like this comes up more complex wins every time and its usually not close.
That being said if i could have voted for two i would have done more complex fighters and less complex spell casters. As in I think the fighter as the combat expert should be a complex martial, if people really have a bug up their but around it being the fighter fine add another class fighter 2 electric boogaloo this time we dont suck. but there could be a spell caster option that is crazy simple like a pyromancer class that basically shoots flame blasts and flame melee strikes with a Arcane Master sub class that has a arcane master pool with flaming disarms, and flaming shoves and trips, a champion of flame sub class etc.
I don't think you need more than 4, but each of those 4 levels would need to be far more significant that what weve seen so far.
Take battle master.
Lets say at level 3 you gain your battle master pool. Its 2d8 you can use it once on your turn and that is its only limitation. You could choose to do no maneuvers and just hit for 2d8. Or you could select from a list of maneuvers, let them choose 4-5. Have 10+ options for level 3, each of these maneuvers cost either 1d8 or 2d8 for example trip cost 1d8, when used once on your turn at level 3 you can hit for normal weapon damage+1d8+a trip effect. A 2d8 effect might be reducing the pool by 2d8 might give a stun effect, so you hit for weapon damage+stun effect. At level 6, your pool grows by 2d8 and you get access to level 6 maneuver which cost anywhere from 1-4 dice and you learn another 4-5 maneuvers, a 2 dice effect might be hit all enemies within 5' reach or 5' radius with ranged or for 3 dice within a 10 foot radius/reach. a 4 die effect might have a one round paralyze. Allow people to stack as many maneuvers as they want into a single attack as long as they have the dice to spend. Level 10/14 keep the trend going 6 dice then 8 dice, have 8 die effects be something crazy that fits for a 14th level character.
If for balance reason they need to limit the number of times you can use maneuvers that is fine, but even when expended they would still have the basic bonk of extra Xd8.
Nopes! Still just as wrong. Your claim remains that 'oooh, it requires so much mental acuity to play a caster, but martials are soooo easy'. And you are simply, plainly, wrong.
Tell me: What difference does it make that you have 25 spells, when the correct choice is simple as tying your shoelaces: Cast the spell with a Wis save against an enemy vulnerable to that, for instance.
Dropping a stinking cloud to - say - CC one group of enemies, blocking battlefield access to another so you can focus on a third isn't difficult. You could train monkeys to do it.
And I'm not saying it's hard to play a barbarian either. Just that they're equal. It makes no living difference. Casters are more time consuming, is all.
But I grant you this: We're not going to magically find agreement here - which is fine, btw. I'm not trying to convince you. I'm making the argument because it's part of this discussion, and without it, your (incorrect) view get's to stand unopposed =)
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Since it's become clear some have their minds made up and no facts will persuade them, this discussion may have reached it's end. Somehow having 4-5 options on how to deal with a threat is less complex than having 2 in some worlds. Somehow having options that include several enemies or a single enemy is simpler than having to choose a single target. Somehow taking what is on a sheet is more difficult and complex than sorting through sometimes dozens of options for what to choose.
In the vacuum sealed box that is the closed mind of someone absolutely convinced, no logic, fact or demonstration of either will break through, More impenetrable than a force cage, the locked in mind is invulnerable to all.
I said it before and will say it again, just for the sake of making noise. ALL classes are fairly complex if played well, with casters adding in more options in many cases to further complicate the decision making. Having to pick from 8 options is more complex than picking from 3, which is a fact, thus any differing opinions are wrong by default. See, others can take a firm stand as well, but some stands are supported by fact, while others are based on opinion.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
When building a game, more choices does not always make for a better experience for players. At some point you run into the problem of choice overload, and the player's satisfaction with what they decided to do with their characters goes down and the speed of play gets slower and slower making the experience worse for all involved. Where is that line? Somewhere above one or two options, but probably below a dozen. That is what playtesting is for. Personally, I think the fix is a mix of adding some extra unique abilities for martial characters to give them a niche casters can't touch, combined with a simplification of caster spell lists to make each more focused on one style of play instead of allowing every caster to handle every style (blaster, controller, healer, buffer, etc...).
I've only skimmed through this, so I'm sorry if it's been asked already.
But is it possible to modify a poll after its created and add more options? Because what I would really prefer is a new class added for Warriors that is vastly more complicated, and new classes added for both Mages and Priests that are vastly more simple. So everyone can get what they want. Some other people seem to feel the same.
I've already said what I feel about simplicity and complexity, and the various ways these terms are used, and the many ways you can introduce options without adding complexity, in other threads. I don't think any of that needs rehashing here too. So I'll stay out of that. But I'd like to answer the poll honestly.