Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 9596580" data-attributes="member: 2067">This isn't a dealbreaker, it's just a requirement of the design. Like, we have spells that only work for people who know how to use them.Maybe the sword that cuts through dimensions also only works for people who know how to use it. Weapon masteries are already a step in this direction (if a mastery is about equal to a cantrip, there could be HIGH LEVEL MASTERIES!), not too hard to expand that. Just like mages get access to levelled spells based on a class spell list, martials could have levelled magical items based on a class equipment list (your rogues get rings of invisibility, your fighters get flametongues, etc.). Admittedly, we're flirting close with 4e's &quot;everything is a power&quot; design here, because what's the real difference between a druid spell that lets you wield a blade of fire and a fighter gear option that lets you wield a blade of fire. And that's....there's tradeoffs to that design. Homogeneity. Over-standardization. Sameyness. So this isn't a win without risk. But, &quot;how do you distinguish classes when everyone has very similar capabilities&quot; is at least a different problem.And, we wouldn't necessarily be repeating 4e's definition of every class based on combat ability. A ring of invisibility works differently from an invisibility spell, and we can keep that distinction to some degree. Fighters maybe get invocation-like abilities. A suit of armor that casts false life, etc. But now I've gone and stirred up the &quot;every class should be a warlock&quot; contingent. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="I'm A Banana, post: 9596580, member: 2067"] This isn't a dealbreaker, it's just a requirement of the design. Like, we have spells that only work for people who know how to use them. Maybe the sword that cuts through dimensions also only works for people who know how to use it. Weapon masteries are already a step in this direction (if a mastery is about equal to a cantrip, there could be HIGH LEVEL MASTERIES!), not too hard to expand that. Just like mages get access to levelled spells based on a class spell list, martials could have levelled magical items based on a class equipment list (your rogues get rings of invisibility, your fighters get flametongues, etc.). Admittedly, we're flirting close with 4e's "everything is a power" design here, because what's the real difference between a druid spell that lets you wield a blade of fire and a fighter gear option that lets you wield a blade of fire. And that's....there's tradeoffs to that design. Homogeneity. Over-standardization. Sameyness. So this isn't a win without risk. But, "how do you distinguish classes when everyone has very similar capabilities" is at least a [I]different[/I] problem. And, we wouldn't necessarily be repeating 4e's definition of every class based on combat ability. A ring of invisibility works differently from an invisibility spell, and we can keep that distinction to some degree. Fighters maybe get invocation-like abilities. A suit of armor that casts [I]false life[/I], etc. But now I've gone and stirred up the "every class should be a warlock" contingent. ;) [/QUOTE]

Verification