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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 6860917" data-attributes="member: 87792">No. That's dependent on the person. Lack of complexity doesn't necessarily equal more fun either. Different people want different things - and 5e seems predicated on the idea that you can play a relatively shallow spellcaster or to likers of complexity you can play a painfully shallow non-caster.But as [MENTION=6790260]EzekielRaiden[/MENTION] just said, what most people want isn't complexity for complexity's sake - it's depth. And this is one of the key issues that 4e fans find missing from, to be honest, most other editions.I am, however, going to disagree with Ezekiel that the classic wizard is deep. It's just not as shallow as a paddling pool. Most of the additional depth in non--4e wizard play is "Do I have the right spell for the job?" with a side order of "Can I prepare the right spells?" At best it's speed-chess "Can I counter that fast?" But it's almost never more than two moves deep and generally only one. But being able to move like a knight as well as a pawn gives you more options than just moving like a pawn.4e combat on the other hand had genuine depth thanks to the forced movement. It was teamwork and multiple moving parts to drop monsters into their own pit traps. Parts involving forced movement from multiple people, lockdown from the Defender, and making sure the monster doesn't try to run first. The post-Essentials Mage cuts down the depth by having so much forced movement that throwing monsters into their own pit traps feels like you've suddenly set down the difficulty to easy and now only need one single moving part.Depth at a tactical level requires two things. Multiple interacting moving parts and relative predictability of interactions across more than one dimension. The hit point grind has basically one moving part and one axis. The classic wizard has multiple possible parts but the dimensionality/predictability combination isn't great. 4e characters have far fewer pieces than the Vancian or 5e wizard but they interact with each other across multiple axes, with the forced movement being the one that leads to combinations.Of course one of the failings of pre-essentials 4e is that not everyone wants this type of complexity; the Slayer and the Scout were both huge boons to the game, as was the Elementalist in the final 4e book worthy of the name (a simple blasty caster; I really need to finish my Elementalist Warlock for 5e because you should be able to have a simple blasty caster as well as a complex fighter).At the moment my 5e character is a Monk of Shadow - there's some complexity there; the spell list is short but great (Minor Illusion, Pass Without Trace, Darkvision, Silence, Darkness) - I think I cast more spells last session than the two actual casters we brought combined when we ignore Firebolts and there's at least target selection, mobility, teamwork, and a couple of random schticks to play with. My other 5e character has been a warlock again with flexible parts that are never quite right but always interesting (hardcore illusionist with minor image, prestidigitation, thaumaturgy, druidcraft, silent image, and disguise self all at will at third level and the actor feat - and illusions are absolutely things that have depth and work well).</blockquote>

Verification