NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Roman" data-source="post: 3389381" data-attributes="member: 1845">Thanks for this post - I love reading design posts (especially from designers <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> ) and always seek to learn something from them. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> I can see the logic behind not wanting to balance classes by giving them a bonus in one area and a penalty in a relatively unrelated area, but if you do not do this, how can you differentiate classes from one another? For example, wizards have high will saves and spellcasting, but poor BAB and hit dice. If you do not want to balance their spellcasting prowess by poor BAB and hit dice, then you either have to remove their spellcasting ability, in which case they are no longer wizards, or you have to balance their spellcasting with penalties in other areas, which though brings us back to square one. So I can see the logic in your thinking, but it seems that it presents a conundrum. As to your thoughts about classes supporting one another, though, I am in complete agreement and am happy that this is the design approach being taken. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification