Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 5842711" data-attributes="member: 2067">I'm a little befuddled at your implicit assumption that these intricacies of rules are necessary to cause the parity. The parity was a design goal for the slayer, and they met that design goal using the tools at their disposal (the 4e rules). Under a different system, they'd use different tools, but the goal can be the same. He was mostly, it seemed, making the point that balance in power doesn't necessarily mean you have to use the same design for everything. Just because the limit is different doesn't mean that there's going to be 9000 splat books' worth of options for one class of character again, or that those options will necessarily be unbalancing. There is no inherent relationship between effectiveness and options. Depths is different then breadth. Getting +1 to attacks is different than getting axe proficiency (or whatever). You don't need to measure every possible option, you just need to define the limits and means for those options (level X effects deal YdZ damage, forex). Is that what you got from that? Because what I got was "Complexity is something that we think should probably be independent of class, so you can have simple wizard and complex rogues and half-complicated barbarians and semi-complicated fighters all in the same party, all equal, because simplicity and complexity isn't necessarily related to how powerful a character is. How powerful a character is is more mathematical, and 4e gave us some good maths to work from."</blockquote>

Verification