Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5622416" data-attributes="member: 82106">I'm skeptical you can do a highly modular system for a variety of reasons. Balance between PCs and monsters being one, but just generally being able to write a module that would work well regardless of which options a given table uses. OTOH basic characters as a concept itself doesn't seem all that hard to do. As other people have said, they don't have to be entirely balanced with 'advanced' characters. I mean 3.5 was inarguably playable and there wasn't even the faintest hint of balance between classes. Not that huge imbalances are GOOD, but they don't render the game unplayable and people certainly will play even less potent options as long as they offer something the player wants. And there really need not be a huge level of difference between one or the other. It is just more that the devs aren't married to making them exactly equivalent, as long as there's a way to make A balanced character for each concept the 'advanced' players will have options that are fair and useful to them and the 'basic' players can prioritize their other needs. If the basic type character can be easily switched over by picking advanced options later on, so much the better.It isn't a perfect solution. Players of the less powerful options will get arm twisted to pick up the more complex powerful options, but nothing is perfect.As far as a true 'Basic using 4e core rules'. A game like that could be designed and would no doubt be a popular game with some groups. I don't personally think I'd be interested in going back to the old 'fighters drool and wizards rule' kind of situation that using the old magic system (or something close to it) would probably entail. There's a reason 4e is progress on previous editions. Still, it really isn't a hard thing to do, kind of an easy homebrew project really...</blockquote>

Verification