Meh? Most of the criticism of 4th I've heard and I hold to is that everything was a power with two paragraphs of text to it. Even small, tidy games had Power Cards arranged like a game of Magic, or a file folder to list them all. The dumb 'kindly ignore logic, even by fantasy standards' aspects were just icing on the cake.VoiceOfReasonPast wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 5:42 pmThough I must admit some of the whining against 4th edition was pretty fun, and they all revolve around that little suspension of disbelief that non-casters need to be super realistic, while casters can do anything because magic.
"Muh D&D is ruined because that Warlord can shout arms back on". Dude, you're fucking Barbarian can take like 15 crossbow bolts to the face![]()
And does anyone else heard about guys going "I don't want Fighters to be able to do more than stand around and hit people because muh little brother or whoeverthefuck doesn't want anything more engaging". I'm not making that up, those exist. There's like some knockoff game called The 13th Age where this was the entire design philosphy of the Fighter and Barbarian.
The arguments for the fighter being simple thing is just that. As before, there are players who have unfathomable difficulties understanding "Roll this, add this" and have to ask every single round. You don't want to ask those people to track spell slots (ranger and up), let alone keep track of what their assorted spells do (sorcerer), let alone maintain a working knowledge of every available spell in their spell list (wizard/cleric). They won't enjoy it and it'll just piss off everyone else.
I know a good half-dozen people I wouldn't trust with anything more complex than a rogue. Most of them are at least aware of it and stick to the simpler stuff for the same reason.