Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Steampunkette" data-source="post: 9774990" data-attributes="member: 6796468">You don't &quot;Need&quot; to do anything. But I think you misinterpreted me saying &quot;some differentiation&quot; with &quot;This is the only thing that makes the classes different at all and otherwise they all function the same way&quot;Power Source alignment was just so that classes with the same power source have something in common with one another, and different from other power sources.Not &quot;The only thing&quot; or &quot;The big thing&quot; just something.Don't need to formalize roles... but you can. And it works well to design off a structure.Both because it gives you some rules to follow in your designs and rules to break in your designs. And you know me: I like to break rules in my designs.That said, yeah, a Sorcerer would 100% be a Blaster if I were to build it from scratch using these guidelines. It'd still have the -option- to use control, just like every role, but &quot;Controller&quot; isn't a role in this setup both to ensure everyone gets to do some and no one gets pigeonholed into that concept.'Kay! That's a perfectly reasonable position to have! I'm not here to yuck your yum, just express a way that the design problem the WotC D&amp;D team didn't plan form can be solved.It is a tragic design flaw, yes. It's why I'd much rather castery-types get spell slots, martial types get exertion, etc. So that you don't get trapped in that vancian structure where you play out battles in a routine.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Steampunkette, post: 9774990, member: 6796468"] You don't "Need" to do anything. But I think you misinterpreted me saying "some differentiation" with "This is the only thing that makes the classes different at all and otherwise they all function the same way" Power Source alignment was just so that classes with the same power source have something in common with one another, and different from other power sources. Not "The only thing" or "The big thing" just something. Don't need to formalize roles... but you can. And it works well to design off a structure. Both because it gives you some rules to follow in your designs and rules to break in your designs. And you know me: I like to break rules in my designs. That said, yeah, a Sorcerer would 100% be a Blaster if I were to build it from scratch using these guidelines. It'd still have the -option- to use control, just like every role, but "Controller" isn't a role in this setup both to ensure everyone gets to do some and no one gets pigeonholed into that concept. 'Kay! That's a perfectly reasonable position to have! I'm not here to yuck your yum, just express a way that the design problem the WotC D&D team didn't plan form can be solved. It is a tragic design flaw, yes. It's why I'd much rather castery-types get spell slots, martial types get exertion, etc. So that you don't get trapped in that vancian structure where you play out battles in a routine. [/QUOTE]

Verification