Right, so I'm going to jump right into this one. As many of you know, I make fairly complex classes. It's kind of my thing. What worries me is that I see people talk about this class or that class being a bit too much for their tastes. In all likelihood, an individual talking like that is one who isn't going to get his money's worth out of the product. That means he feels like he wasted money and will probably not grab another one of my classes for fear of it also being too much.
I propose a rating system added to the top of each of my classes. It measures two quantities, Complexity and Prep Time, with a rating of 1-5. This will give each class a fairly good measure of what it'll take to run without having to wait for a reviewer or provenance to come down and assuage people's doubts.
1 - Low
2 - Low/Medium
3 - Medium
4 - Medium/High
5 - High
Thoughts?
Seems like a good idea to me if you can label them appropriately. People's opinion on which is which though could make it a bit difficult. I mean, some are obvious but with the rating system you'd also need to break down what each rating means since I'd say most of yours fit a 3-5 on the scale in my mind...but it really depends on the scale you're using.
I think that it would need to be done in conjunction with the official classes as well, to give more of a baseline. For example, wizards take a bit more preparation than sorcerers, but they are otherwise the same level of complexity. Actually, given the bloodline stuff, sorcerers might be a tad more complex. Spellcasters in general are more complex than non-spellcasters, and the prepared casters take more preparation. Fighters and Rogues are the easiest to play. Classes that have pools like Magus or Ninja are a bit more complex.
Really? The edgewalker is a 3? I was hoping for a 2.
Edgewalker I could see at a 2 I think. Though the higher end since it has two pools to keep track of. Definitely more complex than stuff like fighter or base rogue though. Not to mention the way a lot of the abilities play together makes it surprisingly complex to build.
Ah, right. I haven't played the class since those 30 free talents were thrown in. Interactions would most definitely be a thing for it nowadays.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Been thinking. Who's willing to help me set these difficulty levels? Odds are I won't mark them as high as they deserve in some cases simply because I built them and underestimate the learning curve.
Don't mind tossing my thoughts in if you want! Though with the disclaimer I'm currently waiting to purchase the latest one due to Paizo's ordering system having some issues since last night so I haven't seen the plaguewright just yet...
Ah, well, no worries about that one, sir. Even I know that one's a "pair of fives", so to speak.
Alright tentative list from me...
(3) Brewmaster - Lot of complexity in the casks, but definitely more straightforward compared to most of the others.
(3) Cartomancer - Admit I might be biased on this one...seems simple to me though.
(2) Edgewalker - Easiest class by far once I compared and looked it over again.
(4) Ethermancer - Lot of options and potential. I love the class, but it could be a bit overwhelming especially if you weren't familiar with warlock.
(3) Herbalist - Close to ethermancer, though honestly this is more work for the DM with the charts than the player, hence the lower ranking.
(5) Maestro - Love this one but composing the scores and everything is probably one of the more complex classes.
(5) Plaguewright - Basing it on what you said mostly. Can't wait to look it over.
(5) Tinker - Really complex and lots to keep track of. Definitely a class for more advanced players.
(3) Truenamer - Middle of the road. Not super easy, but lots of customization and the potential for complexity.
Wow, thanks muchly, mate. We match on seven of them.
I had (4) on Brewmaster and (4) on Truenamer.
Does anyone else want to weigh in?
Oh, and Aleron. Picture the maestro's scores system with a brewmaster-esque simulation system used to make 25 separate scores at level 20.
You have a point there, I never actually statted out a brewmaster yet, it was all just theory-crafting in my head.
Neat that we matched on so many though. Truenamer was another I was really familiar with so I can totally see the difference there.
I agree with you on the actual complexity of the class, but feel the bookkeeping deserves a 4 due to the migrating to-cast DC for each individual spell. It requires its own sheet at high levels. 3 difficulty / 4 prep time would likely be the way I'd split it out.
Including only classes I've reviewed so far (or have completed the first draft) AND had playtesting/PC-experiences in my game:
(5) Tinker: Insanely complex, A LOT of options thanks to additional supplements; Mostly when planning the char, though. Easy to play.
(1) Edgewalker: Two pools, not that much complexity. Don't consider it more complex than e.g. talented monks.
(2) Herbalist: Pretty straightforward to play; Biomes may be a bit of work for the DM; other than that - worked plug and play in my game.
(4) Ethermancer: Takes a bit to "get" - the basic system and its checks and balances require some work in the beginning; Once you understood it, very simple and fast-paced to run.
(4) Brewmaster: All about planning - takes some time to do the planning beforehand and in-game, then becomes somewhat simpler, but remains more planning intensive than e.g. Ethermancer; lower entry-barrier here.
(4) Maestro: Composing scores is complex, yes, but system-wise not that hard to grasp. To master? Yes. Hence the 4.
(3) Truenamer: One complexity - getting the laws, reading the content, that's about it. Relatively simple, but more complex than Edgewalker and Herbalist.
Will have a Cartomancer test-run this Sunday.
Thanks, Thilo!