Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jeffh" data-source="post: 4096463" data-attributes="member: 2642">Has WotC removed a big part of the game's appeal by imposing roughly the same level of complexity on everyone?In 3E, and even moreso in earlier editions, the number of choices you were faced with varied considerably with the class you chose. In "Red Box" D&D, for example (just because I'm getting a bit tired of 3E examples), a Fighter, Dwarf or Halfling made for a very simple and easy-to-learn game experience, a Thief a little less so, a Cleric less still (eventually as complicated as anyone but it eased you in slowly), and the real gearheads could go for a magic-user or maybe an elf. Basic D&D was, within limits, as simple or complex as you wanted it to be, I think it really broadened the game's appeal. (Same with 3E, though the minimum you needed to know was greater.)Now it seems like everyone's got about the same level of complexity. At first level, regardless of class, you've got some skills, which vary a lot less from one character to another than in 3E or even Basic with the optional skill system in place; a few always-on abilities; two or three at-will powers to choose from, with the actual decision often being a no-brainer; a couple of encounter powers, often one from your class and one from your race, with making good use of these seeming to be your main decision point; and one big thing you can do per day. This is as true for a fighter as it is for a wizard; in fact, the wizard seemed like one of the less option-rich playtest characters in some respects. By putting everyone on roughly the same level as far as decision-making goes, it seems to me WotC risks alienating both the beer & pretzels players and the major gearheads by pushing everyone into the middle.</blockquote>

Verification