Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Pickles JG" data-source="post: 5984066" data-attributes="member: 61501">Well you are now arguing a different point. Certainly there could be more variety.&nbsp;I do not believe that the 4e designers went out of their way to make classes samey so that noone could tell what they were playing any more. Rather they prioritised balance &amp; the safest way to ensure this was by fitting all of the classes to a clear template while trying to differentiate them though riders &amp; their role framework. As they grew in confidence with how the system worked they added more varied mechanical systems, though really only 2 variations - psionic,s which might not work, &amp; the essentialised no daily classes. &nbsp;I am sure if they had carried on with 4e they would have come up with more variations. I am sure they could have done so already but they were very nervous about unbalancing things. Clearly if one does not care about balance then this loss of variety will be all bad but if, like me, you appreciate parity then as implemented it is mostly good. &nbsp;WOTC design team seems to get an idea &amp; run with it &amp; run &amp; run. &quot;Balance&quot; &quot;everything core&quot; &amp;&quot; noone is ever useless&quot; were all themes in 4e design that could have been pursued less relentlessly to the benefit of the feel of the game. I also think they missed the boat in terms of making their &quot;power sources&quot; mean something &amp; giving those some strong character. &nbsp;They seem to be carrying on with their obsessions in 5e with &quot;everything can be in a module to please everyone&quot; &amp; &quot;flat maths &quot;&amp; something I can't remember just now. Actually it more people on the boards that like to treat all of those terms as the universal panacea.&nbsp;edit: It's those bloomin' Pillars. While I can have whole sessions of Combat or Interaction (less in D&amp;D than otehr games&nbsp; but still) I did not even know Exploration was feature &amp; I am not sure I like it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Pickles JG, post: 5984066, member: 61501"] Well you are now arguing a different point. Certainly there [I]could[/I] be more variety. I do not believe that the 4e designers went out of their way to make classes samey so that noone could tell what they were playing any more. Rather they prioritised [I]balance[/I] & the safest way to ensure this was by fitting all of the classes to a clear template while trying to differentiate them though riders & their role framework. As they grew in confidence with how the system worked they added more varied mechanical systems, though really only 2 variations - psionic,s which might not work, & the essentialised no daily classes. I am sure if they had carried on with 4e they would have come up with more variations. I am sure they could have done so already but they were very nervous about unbalancing things. Clearly if one does not care about balance then this loss of variety will be all bad but if, like me, you appreciate parity then as implemented it is mostly good. WOTC design team seems to get an idea & run with it & run & run. "Balance" "everything core" &" noone is ever useless" were all themes in 4e design that could have been pursued less relentlessly to the benefit of the feel of the game. I also think they missed the boat in terms of making their "power sources" mean something & giving those some strong character. They seem to be carrying on with their obsessions in 5e with "everything can be in a module to please everyone" & "flat maths "& something I can't remember just now. Actually it more people on the boards that like to treat all of those terms as the universal panacea. edit: It's those bloomin' Pillars. While I can have whole sessions of Combat or Interaction (less in D&D than otehr games but still) I did not even know Exploration was feature & I am not sure I like it. [/QUOTE]

Verification