How do you like your martial characters?

[Campbell]

But what if you can't build the game you want without splats? If the core is too basic, you end up with not enough info/features for the majority of your market. That also bridges in to the discussion of how big the first book should be, etc. but say you want an alternate HP system that's not in the first book but there are half a dozen spread throughout later books? So you're only okay with the first but not veryhappy with it, the fourth looks much better and a year later the sixth nails it for you? Either you never look at the later ones and are never satisfied with the way it works (which is bad for the game overall) or you end up on a treadmill you don't want.

This is an issue I see with a too-modular approach.

Yeah. I don't want 2e - Player's Option Part II.

 

[TwoSix]

All of it. Just not all on the fighter.

There should be several "martial" classes, and each of them should have their own approach to resource management.

 

[Agamon]

But what if you can't build the game you want without splats? If the core is too basic, you end up with not enough info/features for the majority of your market.

Thus, the playtest. If WotC does a 1.5 year playtest and still puts out a book that most people can't use, it deserves to fail. I can't see it happening.

My assumptions follow what is likely, not all the unlikely what if scenarios.

 

[MarkB]

Thus, the playtest. If WotC does a 1.5 year playtest and still puts out a book that most people can't use, it deserves to fail. I can't see it happening.

My assumptions follow what is likely, not all the unlikely what if scenarios.

It may turn out that this modular approach is fundamentally flawed - that it's simply impossible to create a simple system that's playable on its own, and yet remains both balanced and flexible when you bolt on any of a variety of different rules packages.

If that is the case, and WotC don't accept it before they're well into development, they may end up having to go with the flawed system rather than starting from scratch.

Heck, if they start by completing the core system and then release it before getting well into the subsidiary modules, they may not realise they're up a blind alley until after the product is on the shelves.

 

[Agamon]

Heck, if they start by completing the core system and then release it before getting well into the subsidiary modules, they may not realise they're up a blind alley until after the product is on the shelves.

Again, the designers have already stated in Q&As that the modules will be in the core book. There will be no release of core and then modules. They might release the core by itself as a "Basic Game", but that would be aside from the main game.

And modularity has worked in other systems, I'm not sure there can be a fundamental flaw that makes it completely unworkable. The problem will be with the modules themselves. Making sure they get it right before publishing is key.

Edit: how the heck did this turn into a debate about modularity? I had to look at the topic header to remember what this thread was supposed to be about. Oh, yeah, I had to defend my opinion that the OP asked for to others, lol.

 

[Herschel]

Again, the designers have already stated in Q&As that the modules will be in the core book. There will be no release of core and then modules. They might release the core by itself as a "Basic Game", but that would be aside from the main game.

And modularity has worked in other systems, I'm not sure there can be a fundamental flaw that makes it completely unworkable. The problem will be with the modules themselves. Making sure they get it right before publishing is key.

Edit: how the heck did this turn into a debate about modularity? I had to look at the topic header to remember what this thread was supposed to be about. Oh, yeah, I had to defend my opinion that the OP asked for to others, lol.

At least it didn't turn in to another thread about what hit points mean.

 

[Agamon]

At least it didn't turn in to another thread about what hit points mean.

LOL, true dat. Have to spread the xp (sounds like we agree concerning other areas...)

 

[Tony Vargas]

So this is in the name of some sort of balance? Isn't that how the 4e classes got built the way they did?

Yes, 4e classes were balanced (to the degree that they were, they weren't perfect) because they were built from the ground up using a common structure with the intention of keeping them balanced.

That was popular with some, not with others.

Clearly. There are those who appreciate balance, and those who find having to compromise in the name of fairness or the enjoyment of fellow players to be overly constraining.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Yes, 4e classes were balanced (to the degree that they were, they weren't perfect) because they were built from the ground up using a common structure with the intention of keeping them balanced.

That was popular with some, not with others.

Clearly. There are those who appreciate balance, and those who find having to compromise in the name of fairness or the enjoyment of fellow players to be overly constraining.

Do you think it is possible to have characters disparate in terms of structure that are also balanced in terms of fairness and power? I would certainly hope so; my point is that there are many who didn't like 4e because of the homogenized structure of characters, not because they preferred inherent unfairness between classes. Many wanted that fairness but did not feel that the 4e solution of achieving it was suitable or satisfactory. This was compounded by the seeming sameness of the majority of powers (hp loss plus effect). The true differences between classes is evident in play and primarily garnered from the character's role but when only perusing the rules or discussing things from only a theoretical perspective, the differences are not as obvious.

I'm certainly looking for fairness between the classes and in particular the mundane classes versus the magical. I'm glad the road they seem to be taking is different from the current edition though. I don't want the classes to seem to be homogeneous lumps of appoximately equal measure.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[JamesonCourage]

Clearly. There are those who appreciate balance, and those who find having to compromise in the name of fairness or the enjoyment of fellow players to be overly constraining.

While I do enjoy balance, this description is laughably misleading and overgeneralized. So, in that vein, ha ha. As always, play what you like