Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Iosue" data-source="post: 5785037" data-attributes="member: 6680772">I don't agree that 4e run as written encourages combat, but much bandwidth has been used arguing that point, so I'm happy to agree to disagree.&nbsp; The question of the group is a tough one, I'm sure.&nbsp; However, that's separate from the issue of game design, don't you think?&nbsp; If it's a group that is perfectly fine with a combat-weak noble, then relying on BMA and Page 42 stunts should be no problem.&nbsp; If it's a group that demands everyone have a certain degree of combat optimization, then that's not problem with the game, but the playstyle of the group, IMO.I agree that removing powers removes much of the 4e-ness of 4e, but where I don't agree is with the idea that you must have powers to play 4e.&nbsp; 4e is ultimately Dungeons &amp; Dragons before it is 4e.&nbsp; The important questions are, are you playing the role you want to play, with the people you want to play with?&nbsp; If so, whether you are fully expressing the 4e-ness of 4e is beside the point.And more power to you.No, I'm afraid not.&nbsp; The design philosophy behind 4e combat is that everyone who wants to can contribute.&nbsp; No more Angel Summoners and BMX Bandits.&nbsp; But that's only important if everyone wants to contribute to combat in that way.&nbsp; What is &quot;clearly, inarguably better&quot; is relative to what you want to do with the character.&nbsp; It's a choice between &quot;better in combat&quot; and &quot;better fitting the character I want to play&quot;.&nbsp; Far from nothing, the choice of not taking the optimal alternative provides the fuller realization of the character concept.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Iosue, post: 5785037, member: 6680772"] I don't agree that 4e run as written encourages combat, but much bandwidth has been used arguing that point, so I'm happy to agree to disagree. The question of the group is a tough one, I'm sure. However, that's separate from the issue of game design, don't you think? If it's a group that is perfectly fine with a combat-weak noble, then relying on BMA and Page 42 stunts should be no problem. If it's a group that demands everyone have a certain degree of combat optimization, then that's not problem with the game, but the playstyle of the group, IMO. I agree that removing powers removes much of the 4e-ness of 4e, but where I don't agree is with the idea that you must have powers to play 4e. 4e is ultimately Dungeons & Dragons before it is 4e. The important questions are, are you playing the role you want to play, with the people you want to play with? If so, whether you are fully expressing the 4e-ness of 4e is beside the point. And more power to you. No, I'm afraid not. The design philosophy behind 4e combat is that everyone who wants to can contribute. No more Angel Summoners and BMX Bandits. But that's only important if everyone [i]wants[/i] to contribute to combat in that way. What is "clearly, inarguably better" is relative to what you want to do with the character. It's a choice between "better in combat" and "better fitting the character I want to play". Far from nothing, the choice of not taking the optimal alternative provides the fuller realization of the character concept. [/QUOTE]

Verification