In the "why aren't you switching" thread, one argument was the "I thought Y was a problem but why are they changing X when that wasn't a problem" and I wonder how much of this is because of Mearls et al looking at the underlying problem of Y?
Example: Magic items.
Few people I've seen like them. From the anti-4E side to the pro-4E side, many people don't like the current Big six system for non-spellcasters.
However, in fixing this, Mearls et al might have had to play around with the spellcasting system itself. What I mean is, if you get rid of the Big six and make it the Big 3, you have to get rid of the spells themselves which affects not only the effectiveness of the non-spellcasters but also the spellcasters (if there's no Cat Grace for rogues to get higher Dex and AC, you can't have spells that duplicate or give the mage better AC than what a casting of Cat's grace would've done for the rogue).
Which means you got to play around with the spellcasting system so that it itself is balanced.
So how many 3E "problems" would have a cascade effect on the system?
Example: Magic items.
Few people I've seen like them. From the anti-4E side to the pro-4E side, many people don't like the current Big six system for non-spellcasters.
However, in fixing this, Mearls et al might have had to play around with the spellcasting system itself. What I mean is, if you get rid of the Big six and make it the Big 3, you have to get rid of the spells themselves which affects not only the effectiveness of the non-spellcasters but also the spellcasters (if there's no Cat Grace for rogues to get higher Dex and AC, you can't have spells that duplicate or give the mage better AC than what a casting of Cat's grace would've done for the rogue).
Which means you got to play around with the spellcasting system so that it itself is balanced.
So how many 3E "problems" would have a cascade effect on the system?