Sadrik
First Post
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130304
So the other thread on this is pretty dense and I don't know if any of this was discussed in it but I think this is conceptually a really good idea. If there is only going to be one fighter/Mage type then get it right. If there is only going to be one spell that puts someone to sleep then get it right. If there is only going to be one spell to shape change then get it right. And so on...
I can see some changes in approach on this first if a new idea comes up and it might be better than the old it could be that it is instead tacked onto the original feat or spell or class feature or whatever as a new option for that item. This would be in lieu of jst adding the similar feature as a new feat or spell or whatever. I can also see errata happening. I see why mm is saying spend more time play testing because no chaff style features. Solid concepts. Build it once and build it right. The strategy makes sense.
I saw this happen in 3e quite a bit you have character concepts that were rehashed by refluffing them and 4e saw this in spades. In 3e you had the ranger and the scout. You had the rogue and the ninja. You had I don't know how many attempts at making a serviceable fighter magic-user. I think a lot of concept issues for characters can be handled well with a strong multi-classing system.
So the other thread on this is pretty dense and I don't know if any of this was discussed in it but I think this is conceptually a really good idea. If there is only going to be one fighter/Mage type then get it right. If there is only going to be one spell that puts someone to sleep then get it right. If there is only going to be one spell to shape change then get it right. And so on...
I can see some changes in approach on this first if a new idea comes up and it might be better than the old it could be that it is instead tacked onto the original feat or spell or class feature or whatever as a new option for that item. This would be in lieu of jst adding the similar feature as a new feat or spell or whatever. I can also see errata happening. I see why mm is saying spend more time play testing because no chaff style features. Solid concepts. Build it once and build it right. The strategy makes sense.
I saw this happen in 3e quite a bit you have character concepts that were rehashed by refluffing them and 4e saw this in spades. In 3e you had the ranger and the scout. You had the rogue and the ninja. You had I don't know how many attempts at making a serviceable fighter magic-user. I think a lot of concept issues for characters can be handled well with a strong multi-classing system.
