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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3921983" data-attributes="member: 18280">The combat rules have always been the most detailed rules in the game, and yet the game has not always been "about" combat in the way 3e (and, apparently 4e) make it out to be.  1e and 2e were very much about exploration, and you could optomize a character (especially in 2e) for all sorts of non-combative things.It seems to me that the basic unit of 1e was the setting itself (such as a dungeon).  Thus, each of the classes needed to contribute toward exploration of the setting.  The thief could climb walls, the wizard could find the path, the cleric could tell you whether pulling that lever would bring weal or woe.  And, while the game system itself may have had rough patches, the approach that the game system took, in 1e and prior to 1e, was (IMHO) the best approach any edition of D&D has ever taken.When you make one facet of the game all-important, by necessity you limit diversity.  When Imaro says, I guess what I'm saying is, if you want to approach combat, and even the game, in a certain fashion...then don't you pick the class that best suits that approach?When I play a rogue or wizard I don't expect to be able to go toe to toe with an ogre in melee and not get creamed. Just like when I pick a fighter, I don't expect to be able to hurl area attacks or find ancient traps. that, in and of itself, assumes that something other than going toe to toe with an ogre is melee is equally valid, equally fun, and is given roughly the same weight by the game.  Designing a game where everyone is equal in all ways is a step away from improving the game, not a step forward, from my point of view.RC</blockquote>

Verification