NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7646582" data-attributes="member: 996">I've run for a lot of casual players at Encounters and for a while, AL.  There's /nothing/ about 4e AEDU & Keywords that's off-putting to the casual player, they provide a structure that is simple and easy to work with for them, they only concern themselves with the keywords they encounter on their character, and level-up was always a breeze, because the explanation of what you got that level was simple (oh, hey, it's 7th level, everyone pick an encounter power), you pick your encounter power from a small list, that's "engaging with your build."  TBH, the point of the lobotomized martial classes in HotFK/L was never to make them easier for new players, it was to make them acceptable to old players.  Not really, no.  Every class had meaningful choices at chargen/level-up, and in play, but /nothing/ like the complexity and criticality that faces casters in 3.5 or 5e or even the classic game, no even the build-criticality faced by an elegant (but deep) 3.0 fighter. But they were relatively simple choices, from a small number of alternatives. As you leveled up, you prettymuch got one new choice at each level, then a whole level to get used to when & how to best use it.  It was easily digestible in small bites, from 1st level on, that way.  And, if you did regret a choice, you could retrain one each level, too.  Ideal for new players.  But, for a 30-level build, yeah, a lot of work and consternation for relatively little reward.Don't buy it.  4e classes were quite focused and direct. Once you chose Greatweapon vs Protector for instance, your choice of Fighter powers out of the PH was often blindingly simple.  Tide of Iron was /right there/, calling out to the Protector, and not an option for the greatsworder, for the most obvious instance.  You wouldn't go far wrong playing a tiefling wizard and picking a lot of fire spells.  It was never rocket science, the level of 'system mastery' needed to make an OK-to-cool character was minimal and readily acquired - the amount of CharOp style mastery to eke out a meaningful advantage over the obvious choices was profound.  Simplicity & depth, in a game just being judged by how good a game it is, pretty positive - in a game being judged on how much like the version of D&D one started with, disastrous.Some of us outright banned those feats because they were unnecessary. (and, yeah, feats /were/ screwed up very rapidly in 4e, but class designs weren't screwed up until Essentials).  There's no question that neo-Vancian is super-versatile and casting carefree in the in-game sense.  But, really, all that means is that the gain from identifying the best spells is huge. For instance, Wizard McFighter is bad in that sense:  STR is of no use to a Wizard, INTZ of no value to a Fighter.  But, I played an effective enough wizard that way, because,  really it was a wasted feat 4 pts of STR that, in point buy, would've paid for only one or two of a stat I should have been prioritizing, instead.You could go nuts with a 30 level optimized  build, or feel your way through a level at a time, the gap between would be nothing like in 3e.  4e did invite you to customize and think about your character choices, but just at a small bite per level.  It wasn't lock in and hold on, you didn't need to plan in advance.  It was neither extreme, not 1e straightjacket, nor 3e obligatory optimization.</blockquote>

Verification