+ Log in or register to post
Results 91 to 100 of 258
Thursday, 4th October, 2012, 05:14 AM #91
The Grand Druid (Lvl 20)
Sure, there should be more to the game than just combat. But, let's be honest, combat is likely going to play a pretty big part in a lot of campaigns. There's a reason that virtually every single module has well over half its content tied into combat.
Meh, I agree, I'd rather have flight than plusses. But how about fire resistance? Or Swimming? We keep focusing on a really game changing ability like flight. But, there's an awful lot of other abilities out there that are a heck of a lot less useful (but a lot more flavourful) than a +1 or +2.The rules don't give the DM their authority. The consent of the players does. - Mallus
- EN World
- has no influence
- on advertisings
- that are displayed by
- Google Adsense
Thursday, 4th October, 2012, 07:28 AM #92
Waghalter (Lvl 7)
Flying is an odd option, in that it is a great power relative to creatures that cannot fly. It also plays to world assumptions about what consitutes an obstacle - in worlds where flight is common, ravines are not obstacles, but storms might be.
In a campaign where almost everyone can fly, a suit of armour that grants flight, and enables your otherwise ground-hogging fighter to join the game is a necessity.
In a campaign where almost no-one can fly, the same suit gives you great options both in an out of combat. Its not necessary, but its a good choice of item.
There is probably a middle ground where at-will flight is "meh" compared to +1 defences, because you have enough capacity in the party to deal with flying threats and obstacles. The plusses win in that zone.
So IMO, flying is "better" than +1 when flight is either common or rare.
Thursday, 4th October, 2012, 08:07 AM #93
Thursday, 4th October, 2012, 09:47 AM #94
Magsman (Lvl 14)
Friday, 5th October, 2012, 08:24 AM #95
Grandfather of Assassins (Lvl 19)
The game gives us rules to adjudicate ravines - jumping rules, climbing rules, falling damage rules, rope use rules, etc. They may not be the best such rules that can be created, but they are there.
Where are the rules for storms, and adjudicating a storm as an obstacle? No version of D&D has them that I'm aware of (the Wilderness Survival Guide has half-baked rules for being struck by lightning while on the ground; a number of Dragon somewhere in the low-ish 100s had an article about clouds as an obstacle to flight; 4e has rules for winds causing forced movement at the start of a turn).
This tells me something about the game: namely, that it is not intended to support flight as a source of challenges or complications. Rather, flight is meant to be a solution to those challenges.
This makes it hard to compare flight to a +1 armour: the latter is about contributing to action resolution, whereas the former is ultimately about circumventing it.
Of the fantasy RPGs I know, I'd choose Burning Wheel for such a game, but I'm sure there are others that could do the job too. But D&D isn't one of them.
But typically we don't do that, because that's not what the genre is about!
Friday, 5th October, 2012, 02:57 PM #96
The Grand Druid (Lvl 20)
Shhh, we're not supposed to notice that 90% of the rules for D&D focus on combat. D&D has never been about combat and "true" roleplayers all know that.Originally Posted by Pemerton
The rules don't give the DM their authority. The consent of the players does. - Mallus
Friday, 5th October, 2012, 04:05 PM #97
Grandfather of Assassins (Lvl 19)
It's like @Tony Vargas said - violence is inherent to the genre.
Friday, 5th October, 2012, 04:16 PM #98
Enchanter (Lvl 12)
"A rock on a stick has a 5' reach unless otherwise specified."
Friday, 5th October, 2012, 05:48 PM #99
Friday, 5th October, 2012, 06:16 PM #100
Spellbinder (Lvl 16)
1: 4e lasted longer than either 3.5 or 3.0. Are we going to call 3.0 a miserable failure then?
2: 4e offered more general non-combat support than any other edition. To the DM it offered a structure and pacing mechanic (Skill Challenges) unmatched by any other edition of D&D. To the PCs it mixed the broad general competence of AD&D characters who rolled attributes with a measure of detail in what they were skilled along the lines of 3.5 but without completely falling at things they weren't skilled at. And then it offered them specialisations in the form of utility powers that allow you to go above and beyond your normal skills.
2b: The part of non-combat 4e did not do was give wizards many easy ways to make non-combat situations irrelevant. As @pmerton pointed out, if flight was meant to do something other than resolve situations and bypass a range of non-combat challenges then there would be rules for storms adding problems to flight.
So yeah, if you want to call 4e a failure (I don't) then the lesson to take away is that the verson of D&D that is far and away the best set up for non-combat play and allows a lot of non-combat play even compared to 3.X is the one that failed. And the edition you are praising is the one that gives fighters 2+Int points per level and makes Climb, Jump, and Swim into three separate skills (in 4e these are all covered by Athletics) - making 3.X fighters the least competent out of combat characters of any edition.
Last edited by Neonchameleon; Friday, 5th October, 2012 at 06:19 PM.
By Leathros in forum D&D and Pathfinder Rules & DiscussionReplies: 4Last Post: Saturday, 23rd July, 2011, 05:31 PM
By Drusilia in forum D&D and Pathfinder Rules & DiscussionReplies: 0Last Post: Saturday, 1st September, 2007, 02:54 PM
By Neo in forum RPGs & Tabletop Gaming DiscussionReplies: 3Last Post: Tuesday, 12th August, 2003, 04:55 AM
By IndyPendant in forum D&D and Pathfinder Rules & DiscussionReplies: 6Last Post: Tuesday, 4th March, 2003, 12:16 PM
By Riveneye in forum RPGs & Tabletop Gaming DiscussionReplies: 11Last Post: Wednesday, 22nd January, 2003, 04:01 PM