The Two Types of Flexibility: A pit trap for the unwary class builder - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

The Two Types of Flexibility: A pit trap for the unwary class builder

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
zombiegleemax
Sep 30, 2005 19:09:58 The Two Types of Flexibility: A pit trap for the unwary class builder

How often does this argument crop up in discussions about class balance?
Everybody thinks the Wizard is better than the Sorcerer. Obviously, the Wizard is more flexible than the Sorcerer – so then, equally obviously, flexibility equals power.
#2
gilean_dup
Oct 05, 2005 11:38:34 This would be true if additional material wasn't being added. When new material is introduced, it will invariably power some character concepts, if not an entire class (as is the case with broken material). So, with dozens of new feats per book, they will give fighter a greater chance to specialize. In this game, specialization is equivalent with power. This applies to caster with new spells options, probably in greater magnitude. Especially the divine ones who immediately know all of the new toys.

Also, abilities such as warlock's invocations (were they invocations, anyway I don't have the book?) that are increased in number invariably power a few applications of the class up. Not much, mind you, but a little bit is something, still. The problem is greater if the new material is actually more powerful than the old one. This helps mostly those who have a great deal of choices in character creation. Like humans.
#3
zombiegleemax
Oct 20, 2005 18:01:28 None of those options make a character more powerful once the game has started (except spells). They make having class-level flexibility better, but if your fighter isn't the fighter that took the broken feat, you don't get anything for it. That's the difference between the two types of flexibility -- and the reason why class-level flexibility shouldn't be treated as "more power."
#4
gilean_dup
Nov 04, 2005 11:24:15
None of those options make a character more powerful once the game has started (except spells). They make having class-level flexibility better, but if your fighter isn't the fighter that took the broken feat, you don't get anything for it. That's the difference between the two types of flexibility -- and the reason why class-level flexibility shouldn't be treated as "more power."

I agree. Still, power creep is something that should be minimized or dealt with. I doubt the former, so let us hope for the latter.
#5
solbergb
Nov 17, 2005 14:04:58 There is a third kind of flexibility, which is tactical flexibility. A prepared caster like wizard, druid, cleric has strategic flexibility - he can reshuffle himself each day to meet new challenges. Once he's prepared his spells though, he has only limited means of adapting (open slots, pearls of power, metamagic rods) as the day progresses, and each spell cast limits his future options.

A spont caster like sorc, bard or some psions have tactical flexibility - they have all of their options available even in the context of combat rounds. They may be more rigid at "levelup" or on a daily basis, but they don't lose future options for exercising their power now (at least in the case of spont casters, until their highest level slots are gone. Most warrior-type characters also have tactical flexibility - they can either do things or they can't, and every thing they can do, they can do right now.

The measure of tactical flexibility is the number of options you have in a given round, and whether those options decrease as you burn resources, and how fast they decrease. Leaving aside equipment and consumables, a spont caster with a lot of metamagic feats has a tremendous amount of options, just counted in numbers, far higher than his slots indicate. A wizard has options equal to his slots. Both have weak non-spell options as well, but some are useful (eg, withdraw action, aid another, skill checks, familiar scouting, etc).

A fighter type will have fewer options than either, no matter how he is built, since his are tied to his feats, allowed combat maneuvers and class abilites, which just won't add up in number to come close to any primary caster's slots. Fighter options don't degrade over time, except for things like rage which are XXX/day. Spont casters degrade slowly, pretty much only as fast as their top tier spell slots vanish. Wizards degrade faster, each spell cast is gone unless it has been prepped a second time or is somehow recovered again via open slots/pearls of power. Psions degrade really fast, or so I've heard. Maximum power and flexibility, but least endurance. I don't know much about psionics but I could see WOTC choosing that as an option.

Class flexibility is "what are my options at levelup"
Strategic flexibility is "what can I do if I have a day to prepare"
Tactical flexibility is "what can I do right now"

Most analysis of flexibility tends to focus only on Strategic, which is the least important of the three in terms of day-to-day actions, but can force the entire direction of the build in weird places. PRC requirements are an example of limiting current choices to get some future reward, and tend to fall into class flexibility discussions (and the cost to tactical and strategic flexibility is often overlooked, if you look only at the final result and not at how the levels in between paying for the PRC and getting the benefit are in terms of options).
#6
zombiegleemax
Nov 21, 2005 17:58:39 Excellent point; I'm going to have to add that to my lexicon. Thank you!

Psions degrade really fast, or so I've heard. Maximum power and flexibility, but least endurance.

And, of course, the counterpart is the Warlock: minimum flexibility, maximum endurance. The power level, I'm honestly unsure of how to wrap around. I've seen some Warlocks who can hold their own as pretend-Archers, but they'd probably have a hard time standing up to a Psion.

In terms of class-building, class-level flexibility doesn't impact a class' power much, but there absolutely should be a decision made between tactical and strategic flexibility. No class should have ample amounts of both. At best, you'd want a Gish-type to have tactical flexibility slightly worse than a Fighters (same options, but at less overall ability) and either tactical or strategic flexibility worse than a Sorcerer or Wizard respectively (either fewer options or less ability - hopefully not both.)

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 zombiegleemax Sep 30, 2005 19:09:58	The Two Types of Flexibility: A pit trap for the unwary class builder How often does this argument crop up in discussions about class balance? Everybody thinks the Wizard is better than the Sorcerer. Obviously, the Wizard is more flexible than the Sorcerer – so then, equally obviously, flexibility equals power.
#2 gilean_dup Oct 05, 2005 11:38:34	This would be true if additional material wasn't being added. When new material is introduced, it will invariably power some character concepts, if not an entire class (as is the case with broken material). So, with dozens of new feats per book, they will give fighter a greater chance to specialize. In this game, specialization is equivalent with power. This applies to caster with new spells options, probably in greater magnitude. Especially the divine ones who immediately know all of the new toys. Also, abilities such as warlock's invocations (were they invocations, anyway I don't have the book?) that are increased in number invariably power a few applications of the class up. Not much, mind you, but a little bit is something, still. The problem is greater if the new material is actually more powerful than the old one. This helps mostly those who have a great deal of choices in character creation. Like humans.
#3 zombiegleemax Oct 20, 2005 18:01:28	None of those options make a character more powerful once the game has started (except spells). They make having class-level flexibility better, but if your fighter isn't the fighter that took the broken feat, you don't get anything for it. That's the difference between the two types of flexibility -- and the reason why class-level flexibility shouldn't be treated as "more power."
#4 gilean_dup Nov 04, 2005 11:24:15	None of those options make a character more powerful once the game has started (except spells). They make having class-level flexibility better, but if your fighter isn't the fighter that took the broken feat, you don't get anything for it. That's the difference between the two types of flexibility -- and the reason why class-level flexibility shouldn't be treated as "more power." I agree. Still, power creep is something that should be minimized or dealt with. I doubt the former, so let us hope for the latter.
#5 solbergb Nov 17, 2005 14:04:58	There is a third kind of flexibility, which is tactical flexibility. A prepared caster like wizard, druid, cleric has strategic flexibility - he can reshuffle himself each day to meet new challenges. Once he's prepared his spells though, he has only limited means of adapting (open slots, pearls of power, metamagic rods) as the day progresses, and each spell cast limits his future options. A spont caster like sorc, bard or some psions have tactical flexibility - they have all of their options available even in the context of combat rounds. They may be more rigid at "levelup" or on a daily basis, but they don't lose future options for exercising their power now (at least in the case of spont casters, until their highest level slots are gone. Most warrior-type characters also have tactical flexibility - they can either do things or they can't, and every thing they can do, they can do right now. The measure of tactical flexibility is the number of options you have in a given round, and whether those options decrease as you burn resources, and how fast they decrease. Leaving aside equipment and consumables, a spont caster with a lot of metamagic feats has a tremendous amount of options, just counted in numbers, far higher than his slots indicate. A wizard has options equal to his slots. Both have weak non-spell options as well, but some are useful (eg, withdraw action, aid another, skill checks, familiar scouting, etc). A fighter type will have fewer options than either, no matter how he is built, since his are tied to his feats, allowed combat maneuvers and class abilites, which just won't add up in number to come close to any primary caster's slots. Fighter options don't degrade over time, except for things like rage which are XXX/day. Spont casters degrade slowly, pretty much only as fast as their top tier spell slots vanish. Wizards degrade faster, each spell cast is gone unless it has been prepped a second time or is somehow recovered again via open slots/pearls of power. Psions degrade really fast, or so I've heard. Maximum power and flexibility, but least endurance. I don't know much about psionics but I could see WOTC choosing that as an option. Class flexibility is "what are my options at levelup" Strategic flexibility is "what can I do if I have a day to prepare" Tactical flexibility is "what can I do right now" Most analysis of flexibility tends to focus only on Strategic, which is the least important of the three in terms of day-to-day actions, but can force the entire direction of the build in weird places. PRC requirements are an example of limiting current choices to get some future reward, and tend to fall into class flexibility discussions (and the cost to tactical and strategic flexibility is often overlooked, if you look only at the final result and not at how the levels in between paying for the PRC and getting the benefit are in terms of options).
#6 zombiegleemax Nov 21, 2005 17:58:39	Excellent point; I'm going to have to add that to my lexicon. Thank you! Psions degrade really fast, or so I've heard. Maximum power and flexibility, but least endurance. And, of course, the counterpart is the Warlock: minimum flexibility, maximum endurance. The power level, I'm honestly unsure of how to wrap around. I've seen some Warlocks who can hold their own as pretend-Archers, but they'd probably have a hard time standing up to a Psion. In terms of class-building, class-level flexibility doesn't impact a class' power much, but there absolutely should be a decision made between tactical and strategic flexibility. No class should have ample amounts of both. At best, you'd want a Gish-type to have tactical flexibility slightly worse than a Fighters (same options, but at less overall ability) and either tactical or strategic flexibility worse than a Sorcerer or Wizard respectively (either fewer options or less ability - hopefully not both.)