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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 8036097" data-attributes="member: 87792">And that's not something that happened in 4e. I've played non-damaging characters in 4e. Every edition of D&D encourages players to seek out damage - but forcing everyone to maximise damage is a whole different story. 3.0's design decisions leading to wizards that actively worked round the hit point mechanic with save or suck spells were unintended design and the result of bad playtesting. Indeed 4e opened up non-damaging options. First it was the first edition to have at will cantrips so there was something that e.g. pacifist clerics could do every round in combat (Astral Seal mostly); cantrips were limited before 4e. Second there's the warlord - even in the PHB you could contribute significantly to combat while never actually making an attack roll yourself or even using magic.What it cut back on was party members who didn't contribute to combat, instead relying on everyone else to bail them out of a team situation. But minimising escort missions is not at all the same thing as forcing everyone to actively seek out damage.To use a simple example in 3.5 at first level your wizard or cleric had three first level spells. The rest of the time what did they do in combat? Hide, cowering? Or did they try to do damage with weapons?That's not something that happened in 4e either. The rules don't say you must - just they make it a good idea. There is nothing enforcing good tactics in any edition. Simply things guiding you towards good tactics. 4e does not force you to soak your fair share of the damage. Also if it's good tactics in other editions then they guide you to it as well yet you single out 4e simply for making it more obvious that these are good tactics.You also don't get to spread falsehoods. Like 4e forcing you to do things that it actually doesn't force you to do.</blockquote>

Verification