Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5912817" data-attributes="member: 42582">The 4e DMG2 makes it fairly clear, I think, that there is nothing per se objectionable, in the 4e design, about "skipping encounters". The issue is one of pacing, not of authority over plot.The issue for me is whether the mechanical design of the classes hands this sort of authority systematically more to one PC type (eg the wizard) rather than another (eg the fighter).If your last sentence is true, then the idea of balancing classes around the "three pillars" seems misguided - because the player of any PC can be imaginative and creative, whether that PC has strong or weak mechanical capabilities in combat.It is true that D&D has traditionally leaned fairly heavily on freeform for the non-combat pillars. Personally, I think that that tradition makes the whole three pillars idea potentially fraught.The question is - are these going to be as signficant, in terms of both story heft and play at the table, as combat?Historically, when I look through D&D modules, examples of play in the rulebooks, etc, the answer to that question is No.Will D&Dnext depart from this tradition?</blockquote>