Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8998141" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Again, "very basic" or "very basic for Dungeons and Dragons"? I have a supers game I play were 1) Movement is not a thing that matters 2) Positioning is not a thing that matters 3) Range is not a thing that really matters 4) There is no roll to hit 5) There are no defense rolls (except in specific circumstances) 6) There are not multiple types of rolls (no AC vs Saving Throws vs Skill rolls), ect ectIs that a very very basic weapon user I make under that system? And there are likely even simpler systems than THAT. Do we have very very very very basic weapon users in those systems?I'm not saying you are wrong that most weapon users have fewer options than spell casters, or that memorizing the different rule chunks of spellcaster's spells isn't a degree of complexity, but I really think we need to keep in mind that "basic" for DnD is still quite complex as far as games go. And that does lead to a bit of disconnect when talking to new players and saying "this is super easy and basic" then handing them a packet of rules to remember and go over. A smaller packet than another player, but still a packet.Do you have any evidence that 50% of the playtest was spent on the simple fighter? Because I remember that very differently than your randomly uncited numbers.</blockquote>