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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 5621234" data-attributes="member: 2067">I think the same thing that causes that optimism is the same thing that causes some other problems.When you assume a "complex" game and then just give a pre-fab, you run into problems in that parts sometimes are more complex than you'd like, and parts are sometimes simpler than you'd like. For instance, Essentials provides a pretty simple (for 4e) character creation process, but combat is still an intimately detailed process of spatial reasoning and interruptions and action economies. You can give the fighter an aura instead of a mark, but an interrupt is an interrupt and the interactions between OA's, interrupts, shifts, reactions, and the like are still CRAZY complex. There's no good way to make that simpler. There's also no good way to make the noncombat more complex. I'm absolutely positive that the feylock in my Sunday games would have much rather gained some sort of noncombat charm power than an additional use of Icy Skewer at 3rd level. The thief might have rather had some sort of acrobatic talent rather than an additional Backstab. But exploration and interaction aren't things that we get character options for in 4e by and large, so they just got bigger fightin' guns. I think it's generally true that it's easier to add complexity than to take it away, so starting with a simple fighter or mage build, and then adding layers of complexity to it would probably be a better approach than starting with a complex fighter or mage build, and providing one straggling option for folks who want to take it easy. That would also let you turn up the dial slowly, in bits and pieces, to make your complexity a la carte rather than one "newb option" and letting everything else get complicated.</blockquote>

Verification