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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6176200" data-attributes="member: 2067">I didn't intend to imply that it was a monolithic idea, merely that the idea of "barbarians are better than bards" comes from a combat-encounter-focused way of thinking about D&D. I don't see how that point renders the idea that the bard can be a useful contributor to an adventure senseless?4e downplays anything that isn't combat related. "Lore" in 4e is largely related to the things you are fighting. Social interaction in 4e is resolved via skill challenges, which, again, lack the variety and depth and option found in combat (presumably, again, because this is "less important.")4e isn't exactly unique in this regard among D&D editions -- it's just on par with the somewhat unsatisfying non-combat resolution that most other editions have held, where different DMs have wildly different results, because the system is so DM-dependent.It's not monolithic -- like I said, it's implied that combat should be the focus of your games.Rules are there to be used. The more rules you have for a certain thing (like "hitting the goblin,") the more often those things become used, because there is more variety and option there in the rules than there is in other places. At a quick guess, 4e has something like five thousand attack powers, and any one character, at first level, has something like 5-7 themselves. That's a lot of variety and options for hitting the goblin. If you're looking for interesting and varied character options, you gravitate toward one of the seven thousand different ways to hit the goblins, just from the design of the game. There's hundreds of different ways to kill a goblin. There's maybe 3 different ways to talk to it. Again, 4e isn't alone in this, it's just one example. No e gets a free pass on being heavily focused on combat.</blockquote>

Verification