Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JohnSnow" data-source="post: 5279683" data-attributes="member: 32164">Well, I sliced it by lines that I felt had some relevance in my game. I know my players.I didn't mention surges or CON and hit points because it didn't really come up. The newbies accepted it, just as yours did. The vets and lapsed players reaction was basically "Cool! More hit points!" Yes, there was some confusion among the vets on Con bonus vs. Con Score, but no resistance.Perhaps. My whole point was that I had plenty of players, both old and new alike, who resisted the notion of martial classes with powers. I didn't run into the same problem with spellcasters. That leads me to believe that a demographic exists that would like fighters, rogues and rangers that don't use the 4e power system. If you weren't disagreeing with that, then I guess we're not arguing. <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=";)" />I think there's a value in offering different levels of class complexity to cater to differing player preference. I see a lot of folks arguing that "new players" don't care about it, and that it will only appeal to lapsed gamers. I, respectfully, disagree. Sure, it appeals to lapsed gamers. But I also saw at least one new gamer take issue with powers for martial classes.Oh, and the final gamer in my list was a lapsed player.Yes, give them a smaller box. For some players, giving them a list of codified powers will drive them away from being creative.I like the notion of a "Do Something Cool" card. Maybe that would help. But I think the players who embrace "martial powers" often like them because they prefer the guarantee of the power to being subject to the whim of the DM. And that's totally cool - they're the reason powers exist. But some people find that box confining, and they're having LESS fun. Sure, they could go outside the box, but the broader the box, the less comfortable people feel exiting it.It's bizarre, but I generally think it's more important to recognize and work with human nature than to try to change it. And for the players who want simpler classes, the martial ones in essentials seem like a good start. Players who want complex classes can be steered to spellcasters. And if what they REALLY want is a fighter (or ranger or rogue) that works like the wizard, they can be directed to the PHB versions. Which already exist in plenty of complexity.I guess I just don't see what the downside is of offering simpler martial classes in the D&D Essentials products.(Note: I'm not saying they shouldn't ever offer spellcasters along the lines of the knight, thief or slayer; just that the martial ones seem like a good place to start and at least fulfill the goal of having SOME classes that are less complex than others.)</blockquote>

Verification