Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TwinBahamut" data-source="post: 5787406" data-attributes="member: 32536">Yeah, the &quot;four core classes that every other class springs from&quot; concepts does work for me on all kinds of levels.For one, those four classes are not akin to the primary colors of painting. You really can't just mix and match them, or adjust them with branching talent trees, and expect to get a variety of classes that will satisfy people. The Monk and Bard are great examples of classes that don't work well, but there are countless more. Another major issue is that this kind of set-up forces the mechanics of the game into a limiting straightjacket. Every character would be forced to base themselves on the mechanics and structure of those classes, so alternatives like the Sorcerer or Warlocks's separate mechanics from the Wizard, or completely different ideas like Psionics and Incarnum, are stifled. That would be nothing more than a repeat of 4E's biggest mistake.One final issue is that this would cause a ton of rule bloat (at least using my definition of bloat). With such a system, new rulebooks and supplements would be forced to add options for the four classes. This means that anyone of that class will have an unbounded number of options to look through. Basically, a player would need to look through every book they own in order to understand and evaluate their options. This makes character customization and balancing a nightmare. Having options be divided heavily among a larger number of less complex classes would avoid that problem. In that kind of system, you'd only need the book that contained the class you are playing to have access to all the options for that class. It would also allow for a broader range of mechanics and a large number of meaningful choices.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TwinBahamut, post: 5787406, member: 32536"] Yeah, the "four core classes that every other class springs from" concepts does work for me on all kinds of levels. For one, those four classes are not akin to the primary colors of painting. You really can't just mix and match them, or adjust them with branching talent trees, and expect to get a variety of classes that will satisfy people. The Monk and Bard are great examples of classes that don't work well, but there are countless more. Another major issue is that this kind of set-up forces the mechanics of the game into a limiting straightjacket. Every character would be forced to base themselves on the mechanics and structure of those classes, so alternatives like the Sorcerer or Warlocks's separate mechanics from the Wizard, or completely different ideas like Psionics and Incarnum, are stifled. That would be nothing more than a repeat of 4E's biggest mistake. One final issue is that this would cause a ton of rule bloat (at least using my definition of bloat). With such a system, new rulebooks and supplements would be forced to add options for the four classes. This means that anyone of that class will have an unbounded number of options to look through. Basically, a player would need to look through every book they own in order to understand and evaluate their options. This makes character customization and balancing a nightmare. Having options be divided heavily among a larger number of less complex classes would avoid that problem. In that kind of system, you'd only need the book that contained the class you are playing to have access to all the options for that class. It would also allow for a broader range of mechanics and a large number of meaningful choices. [/QUOTE]

Verification