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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6052325" data-attributes="member: 996">Sure, that could restrict customizabilty some.  It does create a need for a complex sort of 'web' of balance instead of an innate systemic balance, but it's not an impossible task.  On the downside (and its a completely different downside), and you saw this with the 3.x fighter, getting some feats (spells) with a lot of preqs eat up a lot of character options, making going for some of the 'best' options very build-constraining.  I don't know if it makes more sense, but it certainly makes design sense to use one customization mechanic for both.I'd have to have agreed 5 years ago.  But, now that I've seen what 4e was able to do, I'm less certain.  Dailies are problematic, you still have the 5MWD issue, even in 4e for instance, but limited-use abilities of some sort do add interest.  4e demonstrated that you could still have that, while having a good degree of class balance, which I found surprising.  Still, it lacked the elegance of the fighter design.  Nod.  3.5 still had some life left in it, as Pathfinder showed, though.  And, I think they really overlooked the power of the open source paradigm in trying to change the way they did.  4e was a big improvement over 3.5, but, as has always been the case with D&D, it was 'behind the times' in how it tried to make that improvement.  Before, TSR or WotC could just say "here's the new D&D."  And everyone would either buy into it or be marginalized.  With the OGL out there, there was no marginalizing the hold-outs, and 4e (quite independent of the nature and depth of change it represented) was doomed.  If 4e had been something like what you described above, it might also have been a great improvement over 3.5, but it would have faced the same grim fate.  Essentials would have just brought back Vancian casting instead of dailyless fighters.</blockquote>

Verification