Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Steampunkette" data-source="post: 8580197" data-attributes="member: 6796468">Fair.Everyone still gets the same 1-20, everyone gets the same overall power level, not everyone takes the same route to get there (9 discrete levels of spellcasting)Maintain the overall leveling scheme (Not changing the rate of XP gain or significant power differences between the classes) while changing the leveling scheme (loss of specific spell levels in favor of class-mechanics and benefits that are more thematic).It was a weird way to phrase it.Design space in classes means more -abilities-. Whether that creates more rules or more exceptions to rules is up to the designers. But every spell you create is no less &quot;More Rules&quot; than any class ability that you create. Same thing with every Subclass and every Race. WotC is clearly not afraid of complicating their game further and is releasing 5.5e as a way to codify the changes they've made over the past decade.Unless their intention is to strip out complexity that already exists in 5e, we're going to have a more rules-heavy game after it comes out. It's only going to be a question of which rules are added, or removed, and whether people think those changes are 'too complicated'. Which, as previously established, is going to be a very subjective and personal threshold that is, ultimately, arbitrary.I really and -truly- hate this phrasing. &quot;Actual Problem&quot; do you know why?Because like &quot;Too Complicated&quot; it's subjective. Any person's problems with the game is going to be subjective. Phrasing it as &quot;Actual Problem&quot; places a bar where I have to convince you, personally, that the overwhelming sameness between the caster classes is a problem. Unless it's a clear error, like a Typo, it'll be subjective. (More or less, people still die on the color/colour hill to this day...)But you've already established that you -like- the regularity and simplicity. You think it's got it's advantages and anything needs to be weighed against the loss of simplicity.It makes you the arbiter of whether the problems I have with the game's design are &quot;Actual&quot; problems or &quot;Personal&quot; problems, with the latter being either irrelevant or at the least less worthy of consideration.Very frustrating.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Steampunkette, post: 8580197, member: 6796468"] Fair. Everyone still gets the same 1-20, everyone gets the same overall power level, not everyone takes the same route to get there (9 discrete levels of spellcasting) Maintain the overall leveling scheme (Not changing the rate of XP gain or significant power differences between the classes) while changing the leveling scheme (loss of specific spell levels in favor of class-mechanics and benefits that are more thematic). It was a weird way to phrase it. Design space in classes means more -abilities-. Whether that creates more rules or more exceptions to rules is up to the designers. But every spell you create is no less "More Rules" than any class ability that you create. Same thing with every Subclass and every Race. WotC is clearly not afraid of complicating their game further and is releasing 5.5e as a way to codify the changes they've made over the past decade. Unless their intention is to strip out complexity that already exists in 5e, we're going to have a more rules-heavy game after it comes out. It's only going to be a question of which rules are added, or removed, and whether people think those changes are 'too complicated'. Which, as previously established, is going to be a very subjective and personal threshold that is, ultimately, arbitrary. I really and -truly- hate this phrasing. "Actual Problem" do you know why? Because like "Too Complicated" it's subjective. Any person's problems with the game is going to be subjective. Phrasing it as "Actual Problem" places a bar where I have to convince you, personally, that the overwhelming sameness between the caster classes is a problem. Unless it's a clear error, like a Typo, it'll be subjective. (More or less, people still die on the color/colour hill to this day...) But you've already established that you -like- the regularity and simplicity. You think it's got it's advantages and anything needs to be weighed against the loss of simplicity. It makes you the arbiter of whether the problems I have with the game's design are "Actual" problems or "Personal" problems, with the latter being either irrelevant or at the least less worthy of consideration. Very frustrating. [/QUOTE]

Verification