BaronDoctor
2017-01-03, 07:12 PM
I've thrown the idea around in another thread, but now I'm actually curious. How would people rank / sort classes in terms of "effectiveness per unit of effort"?
What I'm saying is this: you can go get the equivalent of a university minor in bookwork, time, and study and at the end of it you've got an amazing wizard or druid, or whatever. High effectiveness, high effort. Or you can play a sorcerer, poke through spells and feats and find a prestige class you like and be about 80% as effective for like 20% of the effort.
Also, in play, having eighteen choices you have to weigh and figure out versus having like three.
Granted, I don't know this like some folk know this, but I'd like to eyeball it and get feedback on three or four things: how to simplify playing high complexity classes or simplify the understanding and use of high-complexity builds, if my assessment of effort is accurate, and if my assessment of effectiveness is accurate.
SRD class index (yes, I'm just starting with SRD classes but if this takes off we can go into other things).
Ratings are A (very high) to E (very low) with an X for "game-altering potential"
Barbarian:
Play Complexity: D. You have one resource to manage that you don't have "plenty" of: rages.
Build Complexity: D. Any discussion of barbarians is going to include intimidating rage, whirling frenzy, trapsmasher, and lion spirit totem. Other than that, a lot of other things are either "to taste" or all focused towards a singular goal: putting things down hard.
Effectiveness Floor: D. A complete newbie barbarian can still hit things reasonably hard and can participate in the social (intimidate) and outdoorsy skills games.
Effectiveness Ceiling: C (X-damage). A master's barbarian hits things hard enough to have their attack roll be the equivalent of a save-or-die, demolishes traps, and participates in several skill games. A good class for new players and a fun class (within its limits) for masters.
Bard:
Play Complexity: B. "Hm, do I music, do I cast a spell, do I just try to hit it?"
Build Complexity: B. "Okay, I have like all the good skills on my class list and not nearly enough skill points. I want like five second level spells and I can only get like two. I've got Inspire Courage just begging to have something fun done with it."
Effectiveness Floor: D. A complete newbie bard still can lay down inspire courage, still has the skills and charisma focus to participate in the social and city skills games.
Effectiveness Ceiling: B. A master's bard is a force multiplier that might not completely shake the world but definitely has a massive impact.
Cleric:
Play Complexity: A. "I have so many awesome spells on my list. What do I prepare today?"
Build Complexity: B. "I don't have to pick spells. I pick a couple neat domains, I find something to do with my turning, and I'm a day away from having an answer to our problems."
Effectiveness Floor: C. A complete newbie cleric doesn't know the best spells, isn't doing anything with their turning, but still has the cleric spell list.
Effectiveness Ceiling: A (X-versatility with powerful effects). A master's cleric is the hand of their god (or sometimes their middle finger).
Druid:
Play Complexity: A. "Wild shape? Cast a spell? Summon something? What do I do with my companion? Uhhh..."
Build Complexity: A. Eggynack's encyclopedia was well written and condensed the druid down to just the best of it and it's still really big.
Effectiveness Floor: C. A complete newbie druid doesn't know the best spells, wild shape forms, or summons, but they can do pretty well with the tabletop equivalent of button-mashing. Bear in mind that the player may well feel in over their head or like they're flailing at things trying to find something that works.
Effectiveness Ceiling: A (X-versatility with powerful effects). A master's druid is the reason why children go inside when they hear the howling of wolves, because nature can be scary even when it's a long way away.
Fighter:
Play Complexity: E. You hit things. You shoot things. That's about it.
Build Complexity: D. You get feats. Figure out what you're doing with them. Good luck, though, there's just so many options.
Effectiveness Floor: E. A complete newbie fighter will struggle against level-appropriate foes. Fighters are more trouble than they're worth rather frequently. People have said "play a fighter to figure out the game", but in order to do what you do well you have to go book diving. That said...
Effectiveness Ceiling: C. (X-damage) A master's fighter makes attack rolls that are like save-or-die / save-or-lose and can prevent the enemy from being able to do much.
Monk:
Play Complexity: C. You have a fair chunk of options, but the trick is finding the one you want amidst the other things.
Build Complexity: C.
The proper question for playing a monk is not "Which ACFs should I use?", it's "Which ACFs can't I use?".
Effectiveness Floor: E. A newbie monk will look like a martial arts character in a comedy, ineffectually flailing and failing.
Effectiveness Ceiling: C. A master's monk looks like a martial arts character in an action movie, calm and centered and beating things up.
Paladin:
Play Complexity: C. You're a fighter. With some spells. And lay on hands. And turning. And a special mount. And by the way, you can lose it all.
Build Complexity: C. You've got a lot of resources to play with. Turning, paladin spells, special mount, lay on hands, and there's probably some other stuff I'm forgetting.
Effectiveness Floor: D. A newbie paladin still has access to their whole spell list, and lay on hands, in addition to having the fighter chassis. Without a lot of effort they tend to come off like a fighter with a "holy" thematic.
Effectiveness Ceiling: B. When a paladin brings their A-game, they tend to look almost like a bard that went to church and the gym instead of the brothel and the bar.
Ranger:
Play Complexity: D (C with certain ACFs). Combat style helps guide your actions in combat, and you've got the skills for the outdoorsy and the stealth skills games.
Build Complexity: C. Like the paladin, but for nature, you've got spells, your animal companion, your favored enemy, combat style, skills...there's a lot of directions you can go. Effectiveness Floor: D. A newbie ranger still has their spell list, their combat style, and their skills. A newbie player can do fairly well here.
Effectiveness Ceiling: B. A master's ranger has completely picked out their kit and is about the closest thing to a special forces soldier D&D has.
Rogue:
Play Complexity: D (C with significant UMD use). Sneak attack is king in combat, and you've got a bunch of skills at your fingertips (or spells off wands etc if that's how you roll).
Build Complexity: D. Fairly easy to put one together that's reasonably effective.
Effectiveness Floor: D. A newbie rogue still has their skills and however many d6 of sneak attack. A newbie player can get a sense for the game and be able to participate in a lot of it.
Effectiveness Ceiling: C. A master's rogue is a smooth-talking light-fingered sneak that kills things.
Sorcerer:
Play Complexity: low B. "Well, I can cast anything off this list: what helps us win?"
Build Complexity: low B. "How do I put together a 70% solution list? Is there anything else to what I'm doing with this character?"
Effectiveness Floor: D. A newbie sorcerer might end up only picking one good spell (with the DM's help), but they'll put it together eventually. Probably.
Effectiveness Ceiling: A (X - a limited number of powerful effects, any one of which alters the game). A master's sorcerer might only have a hammer, but when that hammer is Mjolnir, who cares whether or not things are nails?
Wizard:
Play Complexity: A. "What do I prepare today? How many slots do I leave open? Uhhh..."
Build Complexity: A. "I want to be able to do all the things!" "Play a wizard."
Effectiveness Floor: C. A newbie wizard can eventually put things together and get a good list of spells prepared for every level, no matter how they started.
Effectiveness Ceiling: A. A master's wizard has phenomenal cosmic power and whatever living space they want.
Special thanks to Doctor Despair for the Floor/Ceiling concept, GilesTheCleric for input on Clerics and Wizards, Cosi for the rating system, LordOfCain for monk input.
Contributions welcome.
What I'm saying is this: you can go get the equivalent of a university minor in bookwork, time, and study and at the end of it you've got an amazing wizard or druid, or whatever. High effectiveness, high effort. Or you can play a sorcerer, poke through spells and feats and find a prestige class you like and be about 80% as effective for like 20% of the effort.
Also, in play, having eighteen choices you have to weigh and figure out versus having like three.
Granted, I don't know this like some folk know this, but I'd like to eyeball it and get feedback on three or four things: how to simplify playing high complexity classes or simplify the understanding and use of high-complexity builds, if my assessment of effort is accurate, and if my assessment of effectiveness is accurate.
SRD class index (yes, I'm just starting with SRD classes but if this takes off we can go into other things).
Ratings are A (very high) to E (very low) with an X for "game-altering potential"
Barbarian:
Play Complexity: D. You have one resource to manage that you don't have "plenty" of: rages.
Build Complexity: D. Any discussion of barbarians is going to include intimidating rage, whirling frenzy, trapsmasher, and lion spirit totem. Other than that, a lot of other things are either "to taste" or all focused towards a singular goal: putting things down hard.
Effectiveness Floor: D. A complete newbie barbarian can still hit things reasonably hard and can participate in the social (intimidate) and outdoorsy skills games.
Effectiveness Ceiling: C (X-damage). A master's barbarian hits things hard enough to have their attack roll be the equivalent of a save-or-die, demolishes traps, and participates in several skill games. A good class for new players and a fun class (within its limits) for masters.
Bard:
Play Complexity: B. "Hm, do I music, do I cast a spell, do I just try to hit it?"
Build Complexity: B. "Okay, I have like all the good skills on my class list and not nearly enough skill points. I want like five second level spells and I can only get like two. I've got Inspire Courage just begging to have something fun done with it."
Effectiveness Floor: D. A complete newbie bard still can lay down inspire courage, still has the skills and charisma focus to participate in the social and city skills games.
Effectiveness Ceiling: B. A master's bard is a force multiplier that might not completely shake the world but definitely has a massive impact.
Cleric:
Play Complexity: A. "I have so many awesome spells on my list. What do I prepare today?"
Build Complexity: B. "I don't have to pick spells. I pick a couple neat domains, I find something to do with my turning, and I'm a day away from having an answer to our problems."
Effectiveness Floor: C. A complete newbie cleric doesn't know the best spells, isn't doing anything with their turning, but still has the cleric spell list.
Effectiveness Ceiling: A (X-versatility with powerful effects). A master's cleric is the hand of their god (or sometimes their middle finger).
Druid:
Play Complexity: A. "Wild shape? Cast a spell? Summon something? What do I do with my companion? Uhhh..."
Build Complexity: A. Eggynack's encyclopedia was well written and condensed the druid down to just the best of it and it's still really big.
Effectiveness Floor: C. A complete newbie druid doesn't know the best spells, wild shape forms, or summons, but they can do pretty well with the tabletop equivalent of button-mashing. Bear in mind that the player may well feel in over their head or like they're flailing at things trying to find something that works.
Effectiveness Ceiling: A (X-versatility with powerful effects). A master's druid is the reason why children go inside when they hear the howling of wolves, because nature can be scary even when it's a long way away.
Fighter:
Play Complexity: E. You hit things. You shoot things. That's about it.
Build Complexity: D. You get feats. Figure out what you're doing with them. Good luck, though, there's just so many options.
Effectiveness Floor: E. A complete newbie fighter will struggle against level-appropriate foes. Fighters are more trouble than they're worth rather frequently. People have said "play a fighter to figure out the game", but in order to do what you do well you have to go book diving. That said...
Effectiveness Ceiling: C. (X-damage) A master's fighter makes attack rolls that are like save-or-die / save-or-lose and can prevent the enemy from being able to do much.
Monk:
Play Complexity: C. You have a fair chunk of options, but the trick is finding the one you want amidst the other things.
Build Complexity: C.
The proper question for playing a monk is not "Which ACFs should I use?", it's "Which ACFs can't I use?".
Effectiveness Floor: E. A newbie monk will look like a martial arts character in a comedy, ineffectually flailing and failing.
Effectiveness Ceiling: C. A master's monk looks like a martial arts character in an action movie, calm and centered and beating things up.
Paladin:
Play Complexity: C. You're a fighter. With some spells. And lay on hands. And turning. And a special mount. And by the way, you can lose it all.
Build Complexity: C. You've got a lot of resources to play with. Turning, paladin spells, special mount, lay on hands, and there's probably some other stuff I'm forgetting.
Effectiveness Floor: D. A newbie paladin still has access to their whole spell list, and lay on hands, in addition to having the fighter chassis. Without a lot of effort they tend to come off like a fighter with a "holy" thematic.
Effectiveness Ceiling: B. When a paladin brings their A-game, they tend to look almost like a bard that went to church and the gym instead of the brothel and the bar.
Ranger:
Play Complexity: D (C with certain ACFs). Combat style helps guide your actions in combat, and you've got the skills for the outdoorsy and the stealth skills games.
Build Complexity: C. Like the paladin, but for nature, you've got spells, your animal companion, your favored enemy, combat style, skills...there's a lot of directions you can go. Effectiveness Floor: D. A newbie ranger still has their spell list, their combat style, and their skills. A newbie player can do fairly well here.
Effectiveness Ceiling: B. A master's ranger has completely picked out their kit and is about the closest thing to a special forces soldier D&D has.
Rogue:
Play Complexity: D (C with significant UMD use). Sneak attack is king in combat, and you've got a bunch of skills at your fingertips (or spells off wands etc if that's how you roll).
Build Complexity: D. Fairly easy to put one together that's reasonably effective.
Effectiveness Floor: D. A newbie rogue still has their skills and however many d6 of sneak attack. A newbie player can get a sense for the game and be able to participate in a lot of it.
Effectiveness Ceiling: C. A master's rogue is a smooth-talking light-fingered sneak that kills things.
Sorcerer:
Play Complexity: low B. "Well, I can cast anything off this list: what helps us win?"
Build Complexity: low B. "How do I put together a 70% solution list? Is there anything else to what I'm doing with this character?"
Effectiveness Floor: D. A newbie sorcerer might end up only picking one good spell (with the DM's help), but they'll put it together eventually. Probably.
Effectiveness Ceiling: A (X - a limited number of powerful effects, any one of which alters the game). A master's sorcerer might only have a hammer, but when that hammer is Mjolnir, who cares whether or not things are nails?
Wizard:
Play Complexity: A. "What do I prepare today? How many slots do I leave open? Uhhh..."
Build Complexity: A. "I want to be able to do all the things!" "Play a wizard."
Effectiveness Floor: C. A newbie wizard can eventually put things together and get a good list of spells prepared for every level, no matter how they started.
Effectiveness Ceiling: A. A master's wizard has phenomenal cosmic power and whatever living space they want.
Special thanks to Doctor Despair for the Floor/Ceiling concept, GilesTheCleric for input on Clerics and Wizards, Cosi for the rating system, LordOfCain for monk input.
Contributions welcome.