Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mort" data-source="post: 4464893" data-attributes="member: 762">Your right that it wasn't the OP's question I was going off your post.As for the OP's question. Varying levels of complexity can be satisfying, some people like to experiment and tinker and some just like to throw dice. So in theory varying levels of complexity are a good thing.There are a few questions though:1) where does the complexity lead? if it leads nowhere (complexity for complexities sake) what's the point? why not just simplify. If, on the other hand, it leads to a clearly superior character - are you as DM ok with 1 person having a clearly superior character over another? As importantly, are the players ok with this? 2) where is the complexity? Is it up front, or throughout play? This was mentioned up thread - the 3e fighter is complex up front, you need to have an idea what your doing when building the character or the character will likely stink, play execution, however, is usually quick and easy. The wizard is no more complex than the fighter to build up front and may be easier (your best score in Int and your best feat "scribe scroll" is already yours for free) but gets complex in play.3) Are you as DM willing to put up with complexity at the table, are your players? Is it ok for one person to take 30 seconds and another to take five minutes on a consistant basis?</blockquote>