Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 6146520" data-attributes="member: 17106">None of which are assumptions that necessarily reflect how the game is played. After all, there is combat, but it certainly isn't the only thing or the only meaningful thing, and the default level of challenge is itself subjective and not necessarily used. And indeed, one of ENW's notable metathreads of the past five years was when some WotC person stated that D&D was "about" combat, and the majority (at ENW) rejected that notion (albeit not without a boatload of debate).And, if you're looking at balance problems that get traction, they're very often related to noncombat situations, and unbalanced characters are often problematic outside of combat (or through their ability to avoid or countermand battles) rather than for their ability to directly win battles.I do. Don't know how many people hold any particular opinion one way or the other, but I'm not convinced that it's better or even as good as the previous versions of D&D, even if you consider only the comparative effectiveness of different player characters in overcoming combat encounters based on the recommended encounter building guidelines. I do, on the other hand, agree that the "side effects" are where most people's objections are, but I've never been convinced that anything was gained.If I wanted tactically engaging and balanced combat, I wouldn't look to D&D in general, and definitely not there.</blockquote>