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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5552254" data-attributes="member: 54877">I'm fine with non-combat design space being explored or not explored. But if it is explored, I want it explored well. The worst of all possible worlds is a poorly-though hack that trades on old assumptions. If we are to have a 4E version codified, it has to be a 4E version. That starts with the idea that "adventures" has some basic competency so that they can handle all kinds of minor to moderate situations that come up.  Ivory towering, I see it being described thus, in 4E terms, though: 1. Action adventuring side, you must be good at combat/action adventuring. This is what a class gives you. That is 4E design.  2. Non-action adventuring side, you must be moderately compentent at the things an action adventurer would do, but after that, you can specialize in all kinds of unrelated things. You might end up being able to shine at some times and not others, ala previous D&D model. There are whole chuncks of options that might be almost worthless in a given campaign, and it will be up to the group to police this. If your group doesn't care about any of this, you ignore all these options and go with the moderately competent base. If you have flaws with mechanical effects, they should be concentrated on the non-action adventuring side. The only point of mechanical contact between the action adventuring and the non side is the skill system. Other than that, they are completely separate.  There would, of course, be potential for all kinds of contact outside mechanics--e.g. you get a reputation as an adventurer, it affects what you do when not adventurering--but those are setting concerns and circumstantial.</blockquote>

Verification