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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mustrum_Ridcully" data-source="post: 4463157" data-attributes="member: 710">I think Warlock vs Wizard works best at this. Barbarian vs Warblade might also make a good example. (I pick Barbarian because I think the Fighter is probably too weak compared to the Warblade)#--Finally, I really don't know if it was the "complexity" that attracted certain groups of players to their classes, or their theme and tasks.A Wizard always had to choose his spells wisely to manipulate the battlefield. A Cleric always had to prioritize who to heal and who to buff. A Fighter always had to find a way to help Wizards, Clerics or Rogues to survive the onslaught of their enemies. Even with simpler mechanics compared to 3E, a Wizard task is still battlefield control (presumably more explicitly then ever) - that will require a certain way of "thinking" to solve tasks as a Wizard.I wonder if the "complexity" balance in 4E is purely a result of the goal of power balance, or if it was also something else - the idea that not the degree of complexity, but the type of influence on the battlefield is what causes many people to make their choice for a certain class. (If that is the case, I think R&R should have also spent more time on the non-battlefield stuff and figuring out what people like there, but maybe they tough that to be covered by the individual class archetypes?)---For me personally, I think at least 3E (but other games to) tend to make wander between extremes, without ever finding my "comfort" point. Fighters tend to be to simplistic and boring over time (but I like kicking butt in melee), while Wizards or Clerics can be a tedious exercise in micro-management. I enjoyed playing both, but could never play just one of the classes (but I suppose I am not unique to me.)I don't know yet if 4E has reached the perfect equilibrium for me, but it might have done so.</blockquote>

Verification