Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MoonSong" data-source="post: 6060152" data-attributes="member: 6689464">Yes, very aware of what they did in 4e, however what they did there wasn't taking a default, or defining a class, what they did was to straightjacket classes into solid stereotipes without giving any consideration to character flexibility. Having to choose between a bad inflexible default and no default is a false dicotomy, there can be good defaults too. (3e has some good defined classes with nice defaults which turn out ot be pretty flexible, not being confined into a rigid niche.) And that is why the playtest is good, it will allow them to find the good defaults. And I know you actually posted it before, but what I'm saying is: you cannot balance vancian and spontaneous slots in a vacuum, you balance a vancian class with a spontaneous slot class, you balance the whole package, not just a simpe part, for example the 3.5 sorcerer and the 3.5 wizard could have been more balanced if the sorcerer had had two extra skill points, a d6, a medium bab, access to some more proficiencies and one more spell known each time she gained access to a new level (and overall) and the wizard had the max spells known per level of previous editions. In other words they would have been more balanced agaisnt each other if the designers had given each class it's own treatment by treating them as their own thing instead as treat them just the same "because both are mages".</blockquote>