Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 9298968" data-attributes="member: 18">That's not what it looks like he's saying. You seem to be reading a lot into that. He looks like he's just saying "average forum poster" stuff where he's just come up with the "genius" idea that that Fighters and Barbarians cover some of the same ground. He doesn't even mention the approach you're discussing.He's not engaging in humility, quite the contrary, he's engaging in hubris. He's not a game designer. He's an editor and adventure writer. So... unless we're talking about different things...And even on that basis, which is a fine basis, I don't think they've remotely done everything they could.Here's how I see it - 5E had two main people behind it - Mearls and Crawford. Mearls is gone, and has been for most of 5E's history because of, well, his own hubris and thoughtless sexism. The other two most important initial 5E designers, Rodney Thompson and Peter Lee have also both left. Thompson got taken by Bungie and probably makes 2x what he did at WotC. Peter Lee got let go at some point and is now an indie designer.So Crawford has basically the other 3 band members, but wants to keep the band going - so all he can think of to do is keep going exactly as they were, even though, were the rest of them still around, they might have done something to actually improve the situation, rather than merely maintain it.It's not an invalid choice to do basically nothing, but it's a choice and it should be seen and owned as an active choice, rather than the only possibility.They did fix it in an early draft, that's the funny thing.Do you remember? They were very distinct classes in the 5E playtest. Then after the last playtest, they inexplicably reverted to the 3E Sorcerer.My point though is his very shallow thinking - he clearly hasn't considered it as much as you have, for example.Which ones? Because I've seen games attempt to minimalize classes for decades - since the 1990s - and it rarely proves popular or successful. In fact it seems to be a pretty great way to ensure your game never becomes terribly popular. Even classless games tend to do a lot better than games which have 3-4 broad classes. Don't get me started on the Cypher system lol.</blockquote>

Verification