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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="SlyDoubt" data-source="post: 5654881" data-attributes="member: 6667337">Wow you sound like you had a really interesting group and DM there OP.What you're talking about is one version where the rules describe what is happening and one where the players describe what is happening. 4E allows players not to actually think very hard about the scene. They can essentially play it like final fantasy tactics and it 's still got flavor because the flavor is built into the rules.I could replace exactly what you described but with 4E fighter powers instead. Does that make it any more exciting if the player doesn't actually care?This also treads close to the idea that all classes should be equally complex. I don't think they should be. I think it's excellent for players to have the option of playing the easy to understand and use fighter on up to wizard or cleric. If someone is new to the game I want them to understand the basic concepts before they get hung up on the details of why they should choose an orb mage over a wand mage. A class like Slayer will teach someone the most important concepts of 4E/D20. Next time they're making characters or even in the same campaign, maybe they'll decide to try a ranger or druid, someone with more complex decisions to make. I think that's 100% how it should be. Essentials lowers the bar considerably from 4E and also adds that quality of varying play difficulty; it's an excellent choice.4E has too many choices to be made. So many that it is simply overwhelming. Especially when the choices are often very slight differences in your actual class function. By comparison the powers in Essentials are less but much more different from each other. Essentials is definitely where 4E should have begun. We wouldn't have been ready for it and the uproar would have been much louder but I think things would have panned out much more smoothly from that foundation.</blockquote>

Verification