Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="OneWinged4ngel" data-source="post: 4355936" data-attributes="member: 37292">A lot of the extra choices it provided didn't just stem from, say, its ability lists.&nbsp; It stemmed from its emphasis on avoiding breaking points and maintaining even progressions and opening up the viability of multiclassing at far more points, along with things like &quot;Martial Study.&quot;&nbsp; Heck, Martial Study *is* the extent of 4e multiclassing on its own.&nbsp; It's also fairly notable that implementing a refresh system like ToB (or indeed, WoW.&nbsp; For all that a lot of things seem to be taken directly from WoW, they seem to have forgotten a lot of the best things they could take from it) would do a good deal towards fixing the &quot;padded sumo&quot; BS 4e suffers from.&nbsp; Anyways, a big part of what we're doing with our new system is &quot;ToB-ifying&quot; all of the classes.&nbsp; It already seems to be working a lot better than 4e.&nbsp; Honestly, seeing how much they had done towards this more versatile system, it gives me the impression that they did a 180 turn halfway through development and said &quot;hey, if we continue down this ToB/SAGA road, we'll actually make something with the versatility of a classless system and the benefits of a class system.&nbsp; But if we have such great versatility that you can already make every odd gish and combo with just a few small classes and a good, solid discipline list actually constituting *different abilities* (rather than scaling or slightly altering similar abilities), it seems like we'd have less options to sell in future supplements.&quot;&nbsp; Naaah, they wouldn't do that.&nbsp; Just like they wouldn't split up classic, popular monsters amongst more MMs in order to increases the effective &quot;cost&quot; of these monsters rather than trying to make later MMs more attractive in the content department.&nbsp; I mean, that would just be silly and abusive of their brand loyalty advantage.&nbsp; WotC would never do anything like *that.*</blockquote>

[QUOTE="OneWinged4ngel, post: 4355936, member: 37292"] A lot of the extra choices it provided didn't just stem from, say, its ability lists. It stemmed from its emphasis on avoiding breaking points and maintaining even progressions and opening up the viability of multiclassing at far more points, along with things like "Martial Study." Heck, Martial Study *is* the extent of 4e multiclassing on its own. It's also fairly notable that implementing a refresh system like ToB (or indeed, WoW. For all that a lot of things seem to be taken directly from WoW, they seem to have forgotten a lot of the best things they could take from it) would do a good deal towards fixing the "padded sumo" BS 4e suffers from. Anyways, a big part of what we're doing with our new system is "ToB-ifying" all of the classes. It already seems to be working a lot better than 4e. Honestly, seeing how much they had done towards this more versatile system, it gives me the impression that they did a 180 turn halfway through development and said "hey, if we continue down this ToB/SAGA road, we'll actually make something with the versatility of a classless system and the benefits of a class system. But if we have such great versatility that you can already make every odd gish and combo with just a few small classes and a good, solid discipline list actually constituting *different abilities* (rather than scaling or slightly altering similar abilities), it seems like we'd have less options to sell in future supplements." Naaah, they wouldn't do that. Just like they wouldn't split up classic, popular monsters amongst more MMs in order to increases the effective "cost" of these monsters rather than trying to make later MMs more attractive in the content department. I mean, that would just be silly and abusive of their brand loyalty advantage. WotC would never do anything like *that.* [/QUOTE]

Verification