In Programming Scala, author Venkat Subramaniam answers this question with a definitive, "No." He says, "The benefits [of Scala] have removed a huge burden from your shoulders. With Scala, you can focus on your application logic instead of worrying about the low-level threading concerns."
As a Groovy/Java developer, I found much to like about Scala. Scala classes compile down to java.lang.Objects, so interoperability with Java is baked-in. The syntactic sugar shared with Groovy (triple quotes, optional semicolons/parentheses/exception handling, sensible defaults for class/method accessibility, etc.) makes me feel right at home. This allowed me to focus on the semantic differences that Scala brings to the party -- tuples, companion objects, and the ever-present val (an immutable variable).
You see, the complexity of multithreading on the JVM largely evaporates once everything is immutable. As he says, "In functional programming, functions are pure. The output they produce is based solely on the input they receive, and they are not affected by or affect any state, global or local." The book starts with that basic premise, and then proceeds to walk you through simple examples that reinforce that notion. Each chapter builds on the next until finally you have a finished application at the end of the book, complete with XML handling, calls to RESTful web services, and GUI to boot.
Does Venkat supply the complex problems for you to solve? No -- you probably already have them at work. Does he supply a clearly written, easy to follow introduction to Scala that gives you the skills to solve them yourself? Absolutely. But he says it best: "If your objective is to learn everything that there is to learn about Scala, you will not find that in this book...What you will see in this book are essential concepts that you need to know to start using Scala." I'm ready to start using Scala, and I can't think of an easier (or more enjoyable) way to get up and running quickly in a promising new language.