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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 6000423" data-attributes="member: 1465">(just as a reference) <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Module" target="_blank">Modularity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</a>I think "swappability" is a consequential property of modularity, but clearly it requires two alternatives to swap. If you can swap a module with "nothing" (my examples swap with nothing just because there isn't right now anything else to swap with, officially) then you can also swap it with something. Not necessarily viceversa: for instance, you can presumably always swap a feature specific of a class (e.g. fighter's combat superiority or sorcerer's transformation) with something else of equivalent power, but you cannot swap it with "nothing" because you'll skew the relative balance with other classes (you can restore it with removing something from all other classes of course, but I think you get my point).I don't see the example of adding/removing classes from the whole game as a very useful example of modularity... yes, in a way they are modules, because the game still works. But IMHO just not a good example because then nearly every game is technically modular, but clearly this is not the way 5e intends modularity otherwise it would not be highlighted as new/improved in next edition.Edit: I forgot to say that in my previous post I specifically said that 3e core (highlighted) wasn't modular, but several supplements had modular rules: UA was full of them, either "swaps" or "add-ons", but you can consider modulars also rules like the mechanics of Weapons of Legacy for example. I agree that PrCls were definitely modular, for a second I forgot that they were already in the core.</blockquote>

Verification