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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 9666285" data-attributes="member: 6795602">Yes.Maybe, maybe not.  Depends on where you as designer set that baseline to be.Sorry I didn't design a full playable and fun game just for illustrative purposes.  You are just going to have to accept that the purpose of the example was to illustrate a rather specific point.*And anyways, on this point it's really no different than your separate mental and physical toughness resilience.  The same exact critique could be applied to them.That critique is applicable to any asymmetric game.  Even asymmetrical games where skills are grouped together.Really?  This feels like a heads I win, tails you lose statement.  '5e has enough balance, but classes are still not as powerful as each other.'  Like what the heck does that even suppose to mean?4e did nothing similar to what I'm describing.Already answered - for illustrative purposes, to strip down everything to the base level and build up from there.  Something i believe it was you that specifically advocated for earlier in the thread.I'm all for that.Sure.  It's a common way to do things.If your requirement is keep the 6 D&D attributes and balance the game as best as you can around them then let's do that, but that's not what was being discussed when I jumped into the conversation.Why?  Barbarians and Wizards have nearly nothing in common with each other.  Unless you are meaning the basic game structures of having an hp, having an ac, etc.  Sure, but that's not the kind of commanility you were talking about earlier when we started down this rabit hole.  We were talking about grouping skills to attributes.  So it kind of feels like you are changing definitions midstream on me here.You keep asserting this with absolutely no evidence.If you want to group them better that way i've got no issues there.  Saying it's a requirement or overall better to do it that way just isn't true.Are you implying that Classes cannot have more than one ability associated with them?  I mean I cannot see how this statement makes any sense in any possible way whatsoever.Customization can be handled other ways...I'm not presenting a solution.  I'm presenting the hypothetical game as a counterpoint.  You keep making very broad claims about how things must be done without having done the deconstruction necessary to show that what you are claiming as the only way to do a thing is the only way to do the thing.</blockquote>

Verification