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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lackhand" data-source="post: 4462802" data-attributes="member: 36160">What I find interesting is that the level of effectiveness (not necessarily fun) goes, roughly,1) poorly-played wizard2) poorly-played fighter3) well-played fighter4) well-played wizardin 3.x, but I haven't quite measured the diff in 4e; it's likely to have the same relationship between 1&4 and 2&3, though <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=";)" />. Regardless, what this says to me is that the skill gap is now not between classes, but between how you play classes, to whit: they're only as complex as you make them. If you always use your dailies & encounters as soon as they're available, and use some aid to remove the "I don't remember what they do" excuse (a deck of note cards?), there's no decision complexity at all, and it's all resolution complexity.edit: this also scales pretty cunningly with level -- if you're just introducing someone to the game, you start at low level, and they and their characters grow together. If it's a personal choice, of course, this doesn't mean as much.Choose appropriate powers there, and Bob's your uncle.(if you couldn't tell: I like that there's no simple class anymore <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=";)" /> )</blockquote>

Verification