Interesting thoughts. I'm definitely in the "I'm suppose to care about game balance?" team. (Team Jacob? Team Edward?)
Team Conan.
I think there should be a fairly standard curve for combat. In 3.5, if the optimized fighter can manage to hit all attacks with an obnoxious magic weapon and still not do as much damage as a blah spell-caster of lower level, that's a big problem.
On the other hand, if someone wants to sacrifice combat ability for an RP build, I'm not going to argue that. With a clever and open enough GM, that RP character can usually pull out plenty of situational tricks in a fight that are just as effective as the optikillymachine's hack and slash. Mearls gives a good example of that in the comments with the troll lair. The RP character just has to remember that RP doesn't end as soon as blades are drawn.
On the other hand, if someone wants to sacrifice combat ability for an RP build...
Why should anyone ever have to make that choice? 4e doesn't even have RP builds!
On the other hand, if someone wants to sacrifice combat ability for an RP build...Why should anyone ever have to make that choice? 4e doesn't even have RP builds!
While there the class "builds" don't really have a roleplaying or non-roleplaying option (Practically every character is capable of being used for roleplaying), I would say that when choosing utility powers, feats, and magic items there are options that are less useful in combat and instead provide more abilities that are intended to give characters more options when they are roleplaying.
Like, I made a character that took the Linguist feat so that he may know more languages to help him in one of his goals of being a diplomat and trader. However it has limited usefulness in dungeons or combat compared to a feat like Weapon Focus. When I built my character I chose to make a choice more focused on roleplaying instead of combat. So I would definitely say that there are RP builds in 4e.
On the other hand, if someone wants to sacrifice combat ability for an RP build...Why should anyone ever have to make that choice? 4e doesn't even have RP builds!
I'm just going to give my opinion on general gaming here, so don't take it in any way specific to 4E. This thread prolly would have been appropriate in a more general forum since Mearl's comments are general to gaming and not specifically 4E.
If the campaign is all about hack and slash and phat loot, yeah, combat is mainly what the characters are going to experience, but something like a mystery, school setting or political intrigue campaign will have a lot more going on outside of combat. Should every character excel both in and out of combat? I say no, because if every character is awesome at everything, 'awesome' becomes the new standard of 'mundane.'
Again, in deference to the 4E nature of the forum, I'm not trying to start any fights, but I also believe there's a huge difference between rules that govern roleplay, like alignment, and abilities that support roleplay, like craft or profession skills. If a player wants to put skill points into Profession(gamer) and gets plenty use out of it during gameplay, that decision is worth more to that player than had he spent the points in a more 'useful' skill.
Eh, whatever, I don't even think it's worth arguing about. I made my point, you either get it or you don't.
While there the class "builds" don't really have a roleplaying or non-roleplaying option (Practically every character is capable of being used for roleplaying), I would say that when choosing utility powers, feats, and magic items there are options that are less useful in combat and instead provide more abilities that are intended to give characters more options when they are roleplaying.
Like, I made a character that took the Linguist feat so that he may know more languages to help him in one of his goals of being a diplomat and trader. However it has limited usefulness in dungeons or combat compared to a feat like Weapon Focus. When I built my character I chose to make a choice more focused on roleplaying instead of combat. So I would definitely say that there are RP builds in 4e.
Yes, this, precisely.
While there the class "builds" don't really have a roleplaying or non-roleplaying option (Practically every character is capable of being used for roleplaying), I would say that when choosing utility powers, feats, and magic items there are options that are less useful in combat and instead provide more abilities that are intended to give characters more options when they are roleplaying.
Like, I made a character that took the Linguist feat so that he may know more languages to help him in one of his goals of being a diplomat and trader. However it has limited usefulness in dungeons or combat compared to a feat like Weapon Focus. When I built my character I chose to make a choice more focused on roleplaying instead of combat. So I would definitely say that there are RP builds in 4e.
I totally agree with this, when I create a character
in 4e, depending on what I want, I usually pick thingsbased on the roleplay and nonroleplay aspect. Skill powers
are good examples of options that may not be the best, but
add some really nice potential for a more interesting rp "build".
*whoops beat me to it Laddie :)*
Should every character excel both in and out of combat? I say no
I don't think every character has to excel both in and out of combat, but every character should be able to function in every encounter. In 4e, a single feat or utility choice doesn't make a big difference. You can spend them wherever you want, and you don't have to worry that you're gimping your character for half the game. That's a big change from 3rd edition, where you were forced to optimize.
That's a big change from 3rd edition, where you were forced to optimize.
If you say so.
3rd edition allowed way more freedom if you ask me.That's a big change from 3rd edition, where you were forced to optimize.If you say so.
Perfectly fine that you believe that.
Hiya
I think there should be a fairly standard curve for combat. In 3.5, if the optimized fighter can manage to hit all attacks with an obnoxious magic weapon and still not do as much damage as a blah spell-caster of lower level, that's a big problem.
I'm gonna have to say "No" to the 'big problem' part. I would say "Yes" to the 'big problem' part if the spell-caster of lower level could do as much damage all day long.
Too many RP'ers nowadays get hooked on the "per encounter damage potential" when they really should be looking at the "per adventure damage potential". A fighter that can do 20hp a round, every round, will *easily* eclips a wizard with a pair of fireballs, some magic-missiles and a cone of cold if you look at, say, 100 rounds of combat total. The fighter does 2,000hp damage over that time. The poor spellcaster does what? Maybe 200? Sure, the spellcaster may be able to bring that 200hp to bear over the course of a half-dozen rounds...but that's it. Like the Energizer bunny, the fighter just keeps going...and going...and going...and going...
So, again, "No" to the spellcaster doing more damage as a 'big problem'.
Just my 2 coppers. :)
3rd edition allowed way more freedom if you ask me.Perfectly fine that you believe that.
No it's true! In third edition, you were perfectly free to make a character that sucked. In 4e, it's pretty difficult.
OK, that's pretty snarky. What I mean is that in 3rd edition, making a few bad choices or playing the wrong class put you behind the power curve very, very quickly.
I don't like the idea that people should choose between combat power and other power. This is Dungeons & Dragons! You are going to be going into Dungeons and fighting against monsters, possibly Dragons! In such a game, every character should be pretty good at combat, because it is central to the game.
3E by a long shot offers more choices, but that in itself, was its biggest problem. Even if you house ruled or limited the handbooks available to play, there was a bias towards spells casters versus melee. There was also a bias towards those knowledgable versus new players (although this can be proven for any game).
4E attempted to close these gaps, but I think the majority would state they went too far, as least in keeping the versions compatable. I like how they standardized class abilities and powers, but in some respects they went to far. For example, certains powers being limited to melee versus ranged, or only certain weapons (1 handed, 2handed, bow, crossbow, etc.)
It is my opinion 4E is easier to accept for melee types versus those that prefer casters and what was available from previous editions. I use my own preference when making that statement, as I rarely play wizards or clerics.
I like rituals and alchemy as it provides a simple framework, but then no further actions were taken to flesh out the details, or add in other non-combat skills like professions, crafting, components, etc.
As a result of 4E, you do see efforts like Pathfinder that has revised the ruleset once again, and as long as you stick to the core pathfinder ruleset, things are much easier to manage and predict. On the same hand, if 4E matures and it not placed on the shelf by Hasbro, it definitely has time to add more detail, and flesh out some of the framework.
As a DM, I prefer a basic frameset to build upon, versus having a large set of rules to interpret and understand (get tangled up in), especially when players can devote the same amount of time, or more to develop their player concepts (min/maxing/optimize), as you do as a DM to create a campaign.
Complex systems definitely favor the player over the DM.
I don't like the idea that people should choose between combat power and other power. This is Dungeons & Dragons! You are going to be going into Dungeons and fighting against monsters, possibly Dragons! In such a game, every character should be pretty good at combat, because it is central to the game.
This is pretty much it, exactly.
Despite the number of people I've seen online saying that combat effectiveness isn't something that concerns them when putting a character together, I can't even begin to recount the number of times that players have become frustrated with the poor combat performance of their characters (this was mostly in the 3e days). If a character really can't contribute much to navigating the deadly hazards of dungeons and really has a tough time posing a credible threat to dragons, they're going to feel pretty marginal in a huge proportion of D&D games.
|
I saw it put well in another thread - if you are not optimised but everyone else is, then you suffer in terms of game experience. On the other hand, if everyone else is happy to have a non-optimised character, then the power levels are similar and it works OK. 4e doesn't really give you much scope for sub-optimising as the non-combat stuff is de-emphasised, and it has broadly addressed issues of imbalance between the character classes at different levels.
|
If a character really can't contribute much to navigating the deadly hazards of dungeons and really has a tough time posing a credible threat to dragons, they're going to feel pretty marginal in a huge proportion of D&D games.
Emphasis mine. And it doesn't have to be directly damaging the targeting. Buffing allies, keeping them healed, etc., definitely contributes to combat. Example: I currently play a dragonborn leader (cleric) with emphasis on healbot. Except for Sacred Flame and his breath weapon, he does no direct damage. But I know he's essential to our 4-man group: he keeps them healed, improves their attacks/damage, weakens foes (e.g., Astral Seal), etc. And I find him a challenge to run, both as a PC and from a tactical standpoint. I have to make sure I'm in range to use his powers effectively which is no easy task when you have strikers spreading out while the defenders keep the foe in one place.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
To an extent, I agree with you, Scott and joela. But you have to admit, it's a self-perpetuating cycle.
If all you have is a hammer, all your problems start to look like nails. If all you have on your character sheet are combat statistics, then all encounters start to look like combats.
I'm of the opinion that the reason combat takes up the lion's share of the rulebooks is that (a) PCs might die in combat, and the rules keep that from being arbitrary and capricious, and (b) combat is outside the provence of most player's personal experience (we're not all military or SCA fighters, and even they don't regularly go up against Grendl). It's the same reason magic spells get so much space. In particular, it's not because the designers believe that combat-heavy campaigns are the one right way to play D&D.
If the party spends a lot of its time winding the political labirynth of the Emperor's Inner Court, daring to break the seals and descend into his dungeons and consult with the cackling madman who is locked away there, and gets sent out to negotiate with the dragon, then combat utility isn't so great an issue.
|
I saw it put well in another thread - if you are not optimised but everyone else is, then you suffer in terms of game experience. On the other hand, if everyone else is happy to have a non-optimised character, then the power levels are similar and it works OK. 4e doesn't really give you much scope for sub-optimising as the non-combat stuff is de-emphasised, and it has broadly addressed issues of imbalance between the character classes at different levels.
Having a large scope for optimisation while a great mental exercise it does cause issues in game. Non-optimised vs optimised is very subjective, who says when character A and B are the same relative power? Someone pointed out the spell caster vs melee cast problem of 3.5. They then pointed out that it came down to timing. Given an infinite hp's each a Mage vs a Fighter at total hp's inflicted on monsters over a day (14,400 rounds), then the Fighter wins hands down. Say over 2 rounds its the Mage. Either could then be argued to be more powerful than the other, all a matter of time frame.
4e avoids needing to sub-optimise by presenting classes such that they perform "on par" (nearly) out of the box. Optimisation in 4e is more like tweaking to personalise rather than squeezing out large pluses that mere mortals missed in the fine print. There are less "must haves" in 4e we have found. As for the non-combat, if you mean skills then they work fine.
What I first saw as lazy game design (i.e. +1/2 per level to everything) actually in practise makes for better game play. If uber-specialised in Skill X Joe Adventure is currently being held captive then Joe Outforawalkthatwentwrong can have bash. The +5 for trained is +10 levels so really matters still. In fact the broadening of the skills into groups and the +1/2-level means that we don't often run into the "but no one has that skill" problem we sometimes encountered in 3/3.5e.
In our game we haven't found that 4e is any more or less "combaty" than any other version of D&D (or AD&D for that matter). Still kill things and take their stuff at a core.
S.
|
|
If the party spends a lot of its time winding the political labirynth of the Emperor's Inner Court, daring to break the seals and descend into his dungeons and consult with the cackling madman who is locked away there, and gets sent out to negotiate with the dragon, then combat utility isn't so great an issue.
This is a great example of how D&D can be a great role-playing game rather than a series of connected miniatures based combats. Bottom line is D&D can be a combat focused game or a non-combat focused game or somewhere in between. It's really up to the DM.
S.
Bottom line is D&D can be a combat focused game or a non-combat focused game or somewhere in between. It's really up to the DM.
That is true. However, I have never witnessed a non-combat focused D&D game. Ever. Personal anecdotal and all that. It still is enough to make me wonder.
3rd edition allowed way more freedom if you ask me.Perfectly fine that you believe that.No it's true! In third edition, you were perfectly free to make a character that sucked. In 4e, it's pretty difficult.
OK, that's pretty snarky. What I mean is that in 3rd edition, making a few bad choices or playing the wrong class put you behind the power curve very, very quickly.
That is fine to say. It is also fine I guess for you two to have a back and forth over the faults of each others games of choice.
I don't like the idea that people should choose between combat power and other power. This is Dungeons & Dragons! You are going to be going into Dungeons and fighting against monsters, possibly Dragons! In such a game, every character should be pretty good at combat, because it is central to the game.
Then wouldn't it be a preferable modification to remove all those options that aren't about combat. As long as they exist, people are somewhat likely to choose one of those options over a combat focused option. Get rid of feats like Linguist, clean up the skill list removing things like Bluff, Diplomacy, or Streetwise, then move on to utility powers, magic items, and rituals.
Then you can certainly treat everyone as being on an even playing field for encounter that take place outside of combat, without them having to lose out on combat abilities. If they say they are a master craftsman, they are. If they say they are an expert diplomat or know almost a dozen languages, then they have those abilities.
This is not a horrible thought to me, I actually think that it would still be fun game even. But, I do somewhat like the mechanics of the game giving some idea of what my character is capable of outside of combat even if those mechanics require me to often make choices that cause me or others to choose non-combat options just because that is what I want my character to do even if, compared to other choices I could have made, it makes my character weaker.
On the other hand, I often find that I like a game where players can effectively contribute to a goal no matter if they set up every choice they could as focused on combat or every choice they could focused on outside of combat. If, in the process of making my trader, I find that my character would be effectively useless in combats, then that stinks.
I'm not precisely sure where I like that line between freedom of choice and always being effective to be drawn. Overall thought, I think that I can be happy with a game no matter where it draws that line.
|
|
Bottom line is D&D can be a combat focused game or a non-combat focused game or somewhere in between. It's really up to the DM.That is true. However, I have never witnessed a non-combat focused D&D game. Ever. Personal anecdotal and all that. It still is enough to make me wonder.
I'm 100% agreeing. Seems more people like playing Conan/Die Hard stories rather than Love Actually. Some of the Ravenloft setting stuff inspired adventures hinging little on combat, other than that I can't think of any D&D adventures/settings that weren't about beating things up. Mind you glancing over the original D&D adventures from Gygax you can see where it gets it's pedigree from... :)
S.
Some of the Ravenloft setting stuff inspired adventures hinging little on combat...
Good point. I never played in a Ravenloft campaign.
Then wouldn't it be a preferable modification to remove all those options that aren't about combat.
First of all, I didn't say the game was "all about combat." A lot of things can happen in the dungeon. Nasty traps might try to kill you, requiring that you use your skills to escape. A ghostly king might challenge you to prove your worth, and only your knowledge of history and your courtly etiquette will see you through. It's even possible that you might run into a monster who can be persuaded to join your side, if you ply him with honeyed words and a few coins. In short, the dungeon is a busy place, and it isn't exclusively combat based. However, most of the encounters you run into are going to be combat encounters. That's the nature of the game.
I use the following matrix when planning out an adventure. Every Level (10 encounters) is at about the following ratio:
6 Combat Encounters
2 Skill Challenges
1 Trap Encounter
1 Major Quest
This isn't a hard-and-fast rule, but I think it's a good thing to keep in mind when designing an adventure. Mix it up. Combat is the meat and potatoes of D&D, other stuff is the side dishes.
Also, I really, really like some of the mixed combat/skill encounters that are presented in DMG2. I like to see the game moving in that direction.
I'm gonna have to say "No" to the 'big problem' part. I would say "Yes" to the 'big problem' part if the spell-caster of lower level could do as much damage all day long.
Too many RP'ers nowadays get hooked on the "per encounter damage potential" when they really should be looking at the "per adventure damage potential". A fighter that can do 20hp a round, every round, will *easily* eclips a wizard with a pair of fireballs, some magic-missiles and a cone of cold if you look at, say, 100 rounds of combat total. The fighter does 2,000hp damage over that time. The poor spellcaster does what? Maybe 200? Sure, the spellcaster may be able to bring that 200hp to bear over the course of a half-dozen rounds...but that's it. Like the Energizer bunny, the fighter just keeps going...and going...and going...and going...
So, again, "No" to the spellcaster doing more damage as a 'big problem'.
Just my 2 coppers. :)
To be fair, I think the low couple of levels are pretty harsh on a mage compared to a fighter in 3E. Back in ye olde days, even low level spells had a lot of power over the standard physical attacks, but they dried up faster, and a mage was going to stay pretty weak, physically, so there was a trade-off balance in that.
At any rate, I think it's ridiculous that a power balance between characters would become unbalanced or inverted as they gain levels based on a template or class design.
In regard to the general thread regarding characters being inept in combat, anytime I've run with one or more powergamers, I was always still the final arbiter of challenge level and rewards. If players need to optimise to survive my challenges, that's my fault; if I raise power level to engage a single player and everyone else dies, that's my fault; if I'm killing the single non-com over and over again, again, that's my fault.
There was actually a feat I was a big fan of....can't remember the name...but, basically, enemies wouldn't consider the character much of a threat at all, ao they'd tend to ignore them unless the character actually did something and then they'd get the wrath.
Then wouldn't it be a preferable modification to remove all those options that aren't about combat.First of all, I didn't say the game was "all about combat." A lot of things can happen in the dungeon. Nasty traps might try to kill you, requiring that you use your skills to escape. A ghostly king might challenge you to prove your worth, and only your knowledge of history and your courtly etiquette will see you through. It's even possible that you might run into a monster who can be persuaded to join your side, if you ply him with honeyed words and a few coins. In short, the dungeon is a busy place, and it isn't exclusively combat based. However, most of the encounters you run into are going to be combat encounters. That's the nature of the game.
The main quote I was staring at was "I don't like the idea that people should choose between combat power and other power."
Knowledge of history is likely to be less useful in combat than choosing Acrobatics, Athletics, or Stealth. So I think that it is fair to say that a person, like you are suggesting above, could reasonably want to keep non-combat choices available for their character.
The issue then becomes where does one draw that line to protect that character from being too bad at combat. I would say that there isn't an obvious place that should go for the ideal game system even if it is largely focused around combat.
If the campaign is all about hack and slash and phat loot, yeah, combat is mainly what the characters are going to experience, but something like a mystery, school setting or political intrigue campaign will have a lot more going on outside of combat. Should every character excel both in and out of combat? I say no, because if every character is awesome at everything, 'awesome' becomes the new standard of 'mundane.'
Then the trick is to make each character capable of doing some kind of different type of contribution. In the end you need just as much 'balance' for a campaign heavy in mystery or heavy in political intrigue as you do for your combat heavy game. Its just what the focus is on that has changed. If its Murder Mysteries and one of the players is an awesome combat barbarian but not so bright or useful out of combat then we face the same problem as the face in a combat heavy hame with a 'face' that can't really fight.
Hence a good answer for a balanced game becomes one in which that beefy Barbarian may not be the greatest at everything but man does he play the 'bad cop' part really well (good intimidate). Here awesome has not become the new word for Mundane...because not everyone does intimidate, though they all probably can contribute to solving the Murder Mystery.
The same is true for combat. Everyone has to contribute but not all forms of contribution are the same. I play a 4E cleric these days and have a great time contributing in combat even though I can't hit the broad side of a barn...that I rarely actually hurt a monster though is no biggie, with my character design the fact that I get to roll a d20 most rounds and occasionally get high enough to hit is just icing on a cake that covers my main role as the parties problem solver.
I'm of the opinion that the reason combat takes up the lion's share of the rulebooks is that (a) PCs might die in combat, and the rules keep that from being arbitrary and capricious, and (b) combat is outside the provence of most player's personal experience (we're not all military or SCA fighters, and even they don't regularly go up against Grendl). It's the same reason magic spells get so much space. In particular, it's not because the designers believe that combat-heavy campaigns are the one right way to play D&D.
I believe, however, that the game's designers are pretty aware of how the average group tends to play D&D, and that they have come to the conclusion that combat takes up a significant enough portion of their game time that it should receive a great deal of rules attention by virtue of how much time is spent on it, alone.
If arbitrary player death and inexperience with the realities of combat were the primary concerns, combat could have easily been handled with a very quick system of resolution that favors the players much of the time. D&D is not built like that, though. Combat is designed to be intricate, significant, dynamic, and entertaining, and I believe this is because the designers have learned that this is what a lot of their market is looking for.
So no, it's not that they believe there's "one right way to play", but rather that people tend to enjoy games that involve a significant amount of combat (what you consider "combat-heavy" is a matter of personal preference) and so have built the rules to best accommodate that.
So no, it's not that they believe there's "one right way to play", but rather that people tend to enjoy games that involve a significant amount of combat (what you consider "combat-heavy" is a matter of personal preference) and so have built the rules to best accommodate that.
Agreed.
IMNSHO, if a campaign heavy with social encounters and political intrigue - to the exclusion of combat - is what you're looking for, then why are you playing D&D?
I can cut a tree branch with a hack saw, but other saws are more suited to that task.
IMNSHO, if a campaign heavy with social encounters and political intrigue - to the exclusion of combat - is what you're looking for, then why are you playing D&D?
That's exactly the point I was trying to make.
|
What people seem to me to be saying is that D&D is a game that isn't suited for every play style, every player, every type of game. That if you want a game that isn't based around a particular type of "adventuring" than it would be sensible to play something else. D&D is not a 'one-size-fits-all' tool for every fantasy GM's particular game, and never was.
Not in my view. 3ed had tools for running both combat and non-combat activities, and sourcebooks actually began to develop sub-systems for things like affiliations and business.
The spell/feat/skill system was made with both combat and non-combat stuff in mind. It was a great step up from the previous editions and brought D&D closer to the "universalist" systems such as the Storyteller system or the BRP system. Sure, there was a strong combat angle, due to D&Ds origins as hack-and-slash game, but there was a move in the right direction.
Sadly, 4ed made a step backwards. Sure, we have skills and challenges and pizzaz, but the mechanical focus has shifted from feats and skills and spells to combat - oriented powers that tell me how many squares can I shift as my immediate daily interrupt power. This thread reinforces me in belief that 4ed target audience are tactical wargamers, and hence I'm off the hook here.
...if a campaign heavy with social encounters and political intrigue - to the exclusion of combat - is what you're looking for, then why are you playing D&D?
Why indeed.
Knowledge of history is likely to be less useful in combat than choosing Acrobatics, Athletics, or Stealth. So I think that it is fair to say that a person, like you are suggesting above, could reasonably want to keep non-combat choices available for their character.
The issue then becomes where does one draw that line to protect that character from being too bad at combat.
I think that the way 4e has divided up skills, feats, and powers, it makes it nearly impossible to make a character who is really far behind the curve in combat. Typically, a character ends up being able to select 4 out of a possible 6 skills, which means that they end up with most of their possible choices, no matter what.
I agree the 4E uses tactical movement, but I am about the farthest you can be in regards to being a tactical gamer. I will admit when I started playing blue box edition of D&D in middle school and soon after I started using battle mats (wood board with a graph and metal figures) because it helped resolve so many disputes in regards to ranges, distances, etc. but roleplaying and sharing a world with a group of friends is what keeps me coming back.
The only major things 4E added was push, pull, slide as movements, otherwise I am not sure how this differs from 3E combat maneuvers (except for being simplified).
I would argue from a 3E perspective, you have less choices, and therefore that tactical perspective of 4E is more restrictive.
If you actually consider the ability to change sizes and forms (shapechange, polymorph, etc.) in 3E then that supports my argument further.
Whether you use a battle mat, seems like a prefrence in regards to any game.
Speaking for myself (I am fairly certain this was not directed at me) I concede my opinion is biased. Everyone's is. It is also based on my own personal experience. Again, everyone's is. My bias has no root in the edition wars. Every D&D game I have ever run, played in or witnessed from Basic D&D to 4e has been 80% combat.
Does it have to be? Absolutely not. However, when the lion's share of the rules and the most acknowledged way to 'advance' is about combat, is it any wonder many people think it is just about the combat?
Speaking for myself (I am fairly certain this was not directed at me) I concede my opinion is biased. Everyone's is. It is also based on my own personal experience. Again, everyone's is. My bias has no root in the edition wars. Every D&D game I have ever run, played in or witnessed from Basic D&D to 4e has been 80% combat.
Does it have to be? Absolutely not. However, when the lion's share of the rules and the most acknowledged way to 'advance' is about combat, is it any wonder many people think it is just about the combat?
I think this is true. The system is mostly
about getting in your 10 or so encounters toadvance a level. I would always notice my PCs
were more worried about "missing" an encounter or
accidently avoiding one and losing out on exp. So
instead of giving them exp for combat, I switched to
award the equivalent exp they would get thru combat for
roleplaying their character concepts properly instead.
Doing this changed the nature of my game from 80% or so combat
to around 50/50 with different fluctuation between the two
depending on the PCs decisions. I think DnD (any edition) can be
less combat oriented or no combat with only a minor modification to the game and still fit well. My two cents at least...
Last time I checked, 4ed was still labeled as role-playing game, not tactical wargame.
That's because it is a role-playing game. It's a role-playing where combat has a significant amount of emphasis placed upon it by the system, and a lot of people like it that way.
I think that the way 4e has divided up skills, feats, and powers, it makes it nearly impossible to make a character who is really far behind the curve in combat. Typically, a character ends up being able to select 4 out of a possible 6 skills, which means that they end up with most of their possible choices, no matter what.Knowledge of history is likely to be less useful in combat than choosing Acrobatics, Athletics, or Stealth. So I think that it is fair to say that a person, like you are suggesting above, could reasonably want to keep non-combat choices available for their character.
The issue then becomes where does one draw that line to protect that character from being too bad at combat.
And I have no problem with you believing that.
But my argument was that, as long as you have options for outside of combat, there will be opportunities for one to choose non-combat power over combat power. The only way to ensure that choice isn't made, is remove that choice (Which I don't recall an pen and paper RPG doing).
Now, I spent a full year with 4.0, and have not shared my opinions on these boards yet, but this thread seems pretty non-hostile, so here goes.
So I spent a year with 4.0, DM'ed a couple of campaigns, and took part in a couple of good campaigns. Most ended around level 10, and were actually really fun. Before we got a good campaign going though, a bunch come and went, and turned-out to be more like ten level experiments, we played every core class, and most of the PH2 classes to at least level five, playing around with builds and whatnot. But after a while it kept feeling like something was missing, and I couldn't figure it out.
So I started reading the 3.5 PH and DMG on the side, and something came to me, I realized what was missing. D&D has always been a game that errs on the side of realism, and this became apparent as I read. I got really excited, It felt like everything that I was looking for was here, in 3.5.
But, the 3.5 books were extremely ugly and badly laid-out, the text was hard to read, and the rules were often mysteries that you have to hunt and find. One day I stumbled on Pathfinder, and my prayers were answered. Smooth and thoughtful, gritty and realistic like 3.5- yet flashy and streamlined like 4.0, I was ecstatic to say the least.
So we started a campaign in PF, and it is very awesome. We all love the thing to death, and no one has ever considered going back to 4.0, or even 3.5 for that matter. The game feels more organic, the distinction between "combat encounters", "non-combat encounters", and "skill-challenges" is nearly non-existent, and you can build relatively realistic characters that you actually want to roleplay.
I don't want to get "flamy" so I won't go into details here, but I want to make a few points.
*First, Hasn't D&D always had a simulationist feel to it? Why did "balance" take precedence over this in 4e?
*Second, What happens when everything is balanced to fall under a small amount of mechanics? Doesn't everything end-up looking too much the same? What distinction is there between the wizard's magic, and the fighters combat moves? Little, save for flavor and such.
*Third, how does taking the "piddley" little bonuses that used to be entwined with the magic system, and then spreading them-out between all the various powers of all the classes, make combat simpler? In 3.5, you cast a spell and you get +1 for ten minutes, not an everchanging, overlapping, set of bonuses and penalties that reset every combat.
*Fourth, At what point does balance become unrealistic and video gamey?