Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="UngeheuerLich" data-source="post: 9401792" data-attributes="member: 59057">That was a decision they made on purpose. 4e used a different concept of balance updates. And this was getting ugly very fast. If they did it today, people would rightfully point out that you can manage all changes only with digital tools (lile in 4e).Yes. I guesss we just disagree about the ratio between those two. No. That kind of rigid structure was tried im 4e and in pf2e and in my opinion it does not work. I think this is what logically follows from the principle you want to use. Maybe with 4 base structures it will be better. But I am not sure of that. Possible. But mathematically your chamces that you fail to balance each power woth each other is diminishingly small, as you need to look at each ineraction between each choosable feature. For n such features, you look at n*(n-1)/2 bilateral interactions. That does not even consider how 3 features interact with each other. Yes. But if fireball is the same as each multitarget spell at that level, you only need a single one. I do agree, that such a game can work, but it has a distinctly different feel than D&D. If that is good or bad is yours to decide. I honestly can say, that I'd try that game. But it would not replace D&D.</blockquote>