Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dannyl" data-source="post: 6139585" data-attributes="member: 6747102">I started noticing this problem back in 3.5, when Wizards begans publishing more and more different spellcasting classes. We already had the basics; wizard, sorcerer, cleric, and druid, which were followed by truenamer, binder, and shadowcaster. It is cool to have variety but to me it seems kind of forced and silly. The problem was compounded in 4E, when difference classes, although they use the same power source and arbitrarily cast different spells, although they still basically do the same thing.Nothing makes this more clear than the silly differences between wizard and sorcerer. I get the idea behind the two, but on a level of game mechanics there is close to no real difference between the two. Of course, this is not limited just spellcasters. Same applies, possibly even more so, to melee classes, such as fighter, barbarian, and ranger, just give some examples. They all have something they use to hit the other guy with.I do not really blame WotC for this, since, lets face it, they need to make a profit out their products and one of the best ways of doing that is to published half a dozen accessories with different classes in them, and of course, a series of accessories to give those classes more options; paragon paths/prestige classes, spells, feats, etc.I, however, have been envisioning weeding the garden a bit, so to speak.I would like to combine all spellcasting classes, or at least most of them, into one class, and all melee classes, to one class. E.g. all sorcerers, wizards, clerics, and druid would just be classes "wizards" or "sorcerers," or any other name you want. That would mean managing a joint spell / power pool would be a lot more uniform, balanced, and not to mention easier. It would also stop the different classes from reinventing the wheel. Right now, there are plenty of examples of two different classes basically having the exact same ability, with maybe flavor differences in damage and what not.For example, in 4E you can actually build a two weapon fighter that looks and acts exactly like a ranger. It just is not called "ranger."The flavor to each class would come from the exact build, the choice of class features, and lore. You could make a wizard and make it act like a druid, if that was the sort of spellcaster you wanted to play.Any thoughts or experience from this type of class system?</blockquote>

Verification