Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7785343" data-attributes="member: 996">Is it anywhere near the complexity of spells in 3e/PF1, though?  I mean, you pick from a few feats each level, eventually you have a number of feats, and need to keep track of what they do, but you've gotten used to each one of them over a level, so you should have all of them down by the time you start getting used to the next - I can see how it'd be a minor challenge for a build-at-higher-level, but for an organically growing character, should be a non-issue.  Compare that to a 3e/PF1 prepped caster, each /day/ you choose from a large number of spells, prepare quite a few more than 1/level, and need to know/manage each of them.  Seems orders of magnitude more complex once you multiply it all out...The actual number of rules 4e powers were constructed from was pretty small compared to other eds, and the number of powers built up from them fairly large (though not compared to spells at the height of each edition). And, they were easier to look up and parse, requiring little if any interpretation, than spells/feats/specific-combat-rules-like-oh-grapple in any other edition.  So, while I know 'analysis paralysis' became a knee jerk reflex criticism during it's run, it was never remotely valid relative to casting in other editions.OTOH, if you want a 4e analogy to feat bloat - try /feat bloat/, which was just uncontained, a freaking cosmic nebula of chaff with enough must-haves to render choice meaningless for the first few levels of each Tier.  Appalling. As long as baseless criticisms don't get repeated so often they become the truth, you'll be fine.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />It's a term no one should ever have pulled out, because it was always abject nonsense. But, since you did:  how is becoming better at something you practice & use successfully in tremendously dangerous situations /not/ developing your innate potential (some of which comes from your ancestry)?  Seems perfectly reasonable.Your character is tested in the crucible of adventure and emerges /more/ than he was, including being more like a paragon of his ancestry, if that's how the player chooses to develop the character. Yeah, it's clearly a lot /more/ than 5e.  But is it really more Morrus Complexity, or is it actually more Morrus Depth?<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />"Creating Incompetence" can be an issue you run into when trying to add a lot of options, especially around things, like feats or skills, that aren't as arbitrary as supernatural powers or spells.It's like, we know what we're talking about, we just can't find the best way to talk about it.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />That's how I've often felt about 3.5/PF1.  I feel the opposite (rather run than play) about 1e/5e.</blockquote>

Verification