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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 6860936" data-attributes="member: 6790260">@<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=87792" target="_blank">Neonchameleon</a> I had not meant to imply that any real D&D class is particularly deep--TTRPGs in general are very shallow things, strategy-wise. Fighter-types are simply starved of possible avenues of approach, in comparison to "can do everything some portion of the time" spellcasting. Spellcasting is made complex for various reasons, but absent the incredible variety of strategic options presented by games like Go, you need SOME complexity in order to leverage that into depth.I absolutely agree that one of 4e's big things for creating depth is teamwork, but it also (finally) brought Fighter-types into a similar region of..."leverageable complexity" if that makes sense. Not all classes *need* lots of complexity for a game to provide everyone with lots of depth--but consistently relegating certain options to the "no complexity for you!" end of the bus, and others to the "ALL the complexity for you!" end of the bus, is a big part of why depth is also VERY unevenly distributed in 3e and, IMO, 5e.Ironically, making 5e dramatically more mobile may have actually reduced its depth. Of course, the apparent possibility of combats ending in one bloody round (which still completely blows my mind, how is that even POSSIBLE let alone common enough to see regularly!!) does a lot more to squeeze the depth out of the game's combat side. (Noncombat has never been particularly deep in D&D--not even in 4e, and they legit tried with Skill Challenges.)</blockquote>

Verification