Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 4113908" data-attributes="member: 2067">Well, that kind of siloing was begun in 3e. The idea that role playing and mechanics should be separate was very prominent in the edition. RP requirements for prestige classes, for instance, were never an excuse to make the prestige class more powerful, and things like Spellfire were (presumably) balanced for PC use despite it's obvious narrative purpose. Rarity was never an excuse for power, and if something had a mechanical effect, it was balanced on the mechanical scale, not based on it's supposed role in the world.4e is refining the idea a little more, but 4e isn't inventing the idea of not having to choose combat powers over noncombat powers.3e, AFAICT, just didn't ever think that Climb and History and Arcana would be considered as important as combat powers like Attack Bonus.Yes, 4e refines 3e's commitment to divide combat and non-combat stuff so that you don't have (at least as much) Accidental Suck. But in 3e, Accidental Suck rarely came from the influence of non-combat stuff, and more from the influence of wonky feats, the Math Problem (unless you're optimized, you can't hit it!), multiclassing incompatibility, the emphasis on eking out ever +1, the Christmas Tree, and a host of other hidden glitches. So 4e's refining of the Combat/Noncombat divide doesn't, by itself, eliminate 3e's problem of Accidental Suck. It's a more complex problem than that.There's also the fact that combat happens in-character, and that your character's abilities should reflect your Intentional Powers, and your Intentional Suck as well. For clarity:Intentional Suck = A place where you have deliberately chosen to not enhance your character because that makes the character more interesting to you. When this comes up in a limited capacity, it is lots of fun. When this comes up over and over again, it becomes Accidental Suck.Example: A telepath who has taken a vow of nonviolence. Great in an intrigue-heavy humanoid-PC laden political campaign. In the event that a combat occurs once in a while, he sucks, and it is fun. In the event that the campaign happens to focus on a dungeon crawl with gibbering horrors from the Far Realm, he sucks too much, and it is not fun.But more to the point with what I was discussing, the Trip power being per-encounter, for instance, doesn't help anyone play any character to any full extent. Nor is it a case of combat/noncombat siloing. It is, in part, a specific point on the Character - Story continuum for RPG's in that it emphasizes Story (what happens -- you trip once per encounter) over Character (who it happens to -- you can try and trip whenever you want to aim for someone's feet). That continuum doesn't have much to do with the combat/noncombat division, nor with each class being viable in combat.These things are contradictory. Is there a difference between editions? Is that difference that 4e's combat is "much more than merely the dice rolling to simulate physical actions?" If so, how is 4e's combat more? Because from where I'm sitting, one of 4e's central paradigms, which it also applies to combat, is that the events that happen are the most important thing. You can't trip every round in 4e because that would be boring or dumb or generally not make a good story. Even though you don't magically loose the ability to trip every round in-character, the rules say you can only do it once. 3e was more concerned with behaving in-character, so the rules said that, acting in-character, you can do it as much as your character would tend to do it. Both approaches have their problems and compromises.Don't put words in my mouth.</blockquote>

Verification