Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5794247" data-attributes="member: 82106">Eh, I can sort of see the argument that combat gets excessive mind-share, but I disagree that 4e 'neglected' the non-combat side of the equation. It simply filled it with a fairly streamlined and generalized system designed to provide good solid rules that get out of the way of doing all the myriad things you may want to do in different situations and different styles of game.This isn't an accident. It isn't neglect either. It is a conscious and calculated game design decision. One of the things it does is tend to even out the differences in agency that existed in previous editions, where the lack of specific permission for a character to be good at something made them bad at it for instance. This lead to a situation where it was natural for spells to simply fill in all those incompetencies with an answer box. There are things that can certainly be made more polished on that side of 4e's design, (and on the combat side for that matter), but the core concept is good. Skill Tricks for instance would be a perfectly good addition, as would a more refined SC system. However I think adding a lot of codified rules for what you can and can't do wouldn't be a good idea. Skill Tricks would work because you don't HAVE to have some trick to pull something off, it just makes you better at it or able to apply your skill in a few additional situations. Things like CPP rules and lots of 'trained only' things OTOH wouldn't be good in general.</blockquote>

Verification