Forum

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Originally Posted by ExploderWizard

I currently get to play 1 regular (4-6 hour) session every 2 weeks and I still don't consider not being in combat the entire session to be a waste of time.

I wasn't talking about combat specifically.
Look at a skill challenge - it provides me a way to think about how my character can contribute to any situation. Of course, real old school gaming would probably not want the skill part of this and just have my thinking about the situation and how to solve it.

Its all about knowing what your players want. The system should provide robust options for both combat and non-combat and leave the balance to the DM. If you balance only for combat then you have made a combat game. If thats what everyone wants its the Holy Grail. If you have a mixed group including people that want to be just as good at doing things out of combat as others are in combat then a system that allows for that helps a lot. Sure you have skills but the combat character has the same stuff. In order to be balanced you have to take a heaping serving of combat powers and are still no better at other things than Mr. combat.

In effect, the DM is taken out of the loop for providing overall campaign balance, leaving the same flavor for every game.

Why are you assuming that just because classes are balanced by combat that you can only play combat? Every class in 4E has non-combat abilities (skills), and I suppose every player is able of coming up with ideas to solve problems or make decision on their course of action. If you generally trust the DM to handle balance, why do you lose this trust if the game provides the combat balance? Is it just because you want to use your combat powers whenever it's your turn to make a decision?