Death to the Skill Monkey...

[Lord Zardoz]

Even back in AD&D, the thief wasn't there to be a "striker" or whatever, he was a trap expert and climber and lockpick and scout, with combat as a secondary role and backstab a nice bonus if you could pull it off. Fighters (and fighter-types like Paladins and Rangers and Monks) were the ones that shined when the party got into melee. Thieves and Clerics could help some but it wasn't their specialty, and Wizard spells sure were nice in a fight but it was clear that a Wizard wanted to avoid fights when possible because of their low HP and AC (in my AD&D days, we always used the expression "Armor Class Mage" to mean AC 10).

This is not the sort of thing that ought to be looked at in a 'this is how things were done before' light. This is the sort of thing that should be looked at in a 'how is this game played' manner.

Combat is not the only thing that happens in a D&D game, but it is the most important thing. If you were to remove all the rules having to do with combat from any edition of the game, you really would not be left with much, just some movement rules, a much smaller spell list, and some form of a skill system. The list of magic items would also be greatly reduced.

In addition to that, Combat typically takes up anywhere between half to 75% of the actual playing time of the game. RP heavy games may reduce that, but it is not a play style that the D&D game system handles very well. Most in game problems that have cropped up to be complained about in 3rd edition also have to do with combat. No one complains that the Skill Focus feat is over powered. I do not think many games have been broken by a players brilliant use of the Disguise and Forgery skills. But Haste and Harm got alot of flack before 3.5. People are dis satisfied with the Monk becuase of Flurry of Misses, and high level play is criticized primarily because combat starts to drag down, and the number get screwy when you get to "Only the Fighter will Hit" levels of AC.

It is in no ones interest to have 4th edition be a game where the classes are balanced in such a way that Combat Weak classes are strong outside of combat if 50% to 75% of gameplay will end up being combat. The game as a whole will be better if everyone at the table can be doing something entertaining within the game at all times.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Ximenes088]

I always liked the "skill monkey" characters, the ones with useful skills for any occasion, and were well rounded. Those characters might not be as mathematically optimum as a specialized character when initiative happened, but they sure were useful to have around.

It seems to me that 4e is actually taking a step back from a combat-centric world in giving PCs in general a stronger degree of noncombat skill competence. Skill challenges can be designed to give the whole party something to do, with the knowledge that some PCs may be noticeably better but none are wholly incompetent. Even at higher levels, you can actually do something like "the party must sneak past the X without using magic". At 10th level, that challenge becomes impossible unless you somehow arrange it to give risk to the Move Silently +18 Rogue while not making it impossible for the Move Silently +2 Fighter. If all characters remain in the same general league, the specialist can be notably superior without forcing all relevant challenges to be solo exercises.

 

[Gundark]

I'm just glad to know I'm not alone in wanting my character to use skills to show personal growth and interest outside of Combat.

There was some ideas that I had that when I proposed them on the forums where shot down pretty quick. However some of them are ideas that are being put into 4e, which people are praising.

It's nice to see