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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8949486" data-attributes="member: 6790260">And I'm saying they aren't. You went looking for very specific things, because you saw those as being the only way something could be not combat-oriented. When you didn't see them, you then assumed that that meant the game was combat-oriented. It isn't--not any moreso than 5e, 3e, or any previous edition. The vast majority of rules, other than the reams of magic items and spell lists, in every edition refer to combat. "Spell lists" refers to both some powers (because, contra what you've said, there are plenty of utility powers even in the PHB1 that are not about combat, at all) and to rituals. Writing off rituals as being unimportant or ghettoized is your false assumption, not anything even remotely supported by the text.By telling someone what something is for, the argument goes, you are also telling them everything else is forbidden. Hence, by saying what a monster is for outside of combat, you're telling the DM they aren't allowed to do anything else. That's why people hated 4e roles, because they (erroneously) claim that they're straightjackets denying any form of difference or creativity. Why wouldn't that also apply to monsters?Oh, don't get me wrong, I think the whole argument is bunk. But we're already in the realm of not talking about what the text ever says, but about what people think about the text even when it explicitly rejects some interpretation.Nothing about 5e statblocks, as [USER=6877472]@James Gasik[/USER] just noted, is even slightly more non-combat-focused than the 4e ones. A couple of skills, maybe an alignment, ability scores. It's not different. But for some reason 4e gets crapped on for being all combat all the time, and 5e gets its praises sung for being super supportive.I have three answers for you.First: I don't actually believe that a character who scrupulously avoids any capacity to contribute damage is consistently effective, in any edition. So the question, at least from that angle, seems moot; you're asking for something I don't think has ever been true. It certainly wasn't true in 3e, and it's not true in 5e either. A gimmick character isn't effective outside their narrow range, and being hyperspecialized in illusions and never ever doing anything that could contribute to damage-dealing is, in fact, a narrow range. Illusion is widely recognized as a weak school of magic that requires both substantial DM buy-in and very high player creativity, otherwise it's not effective. Being able to solve a combat or two with a clever illusion is not and never has been the same as being "effective." Anyone can contrive a situation where any character, even the most objectively useless, can turn the tide or make a difference just this once.Second: Not using only PHB material, but if you allow stuff beyond it, 100% yes, it is possible to create characters who have nothing beyond basic attacks for personal damage contribution. Certainly the Warlord can do it, the controversial "Lazylord" setup; there's also a pacifist Cleric option that actually punishes you for doing damage to other beings, but I don't know much about that.Third: Even your own request, if I consider it to be "effective" for the sake of argument, is at best very difficult to pull off in 5e. An Illusionist gets 4 starting cantrips (due to getting minor illusion for free--or a different cantrip of choice, if they already know that one) and eventually learns a total of 6. You have to be real scrupulous about avoiding the combat cantrips (counting things like blade ward and true strike here), there's literally only 7 truly distinct PHB options (since dancing lights is redundant with regular light) vs 8 combat cantrips (whether damage-dealing or combat-buffing.) It gets worse with the actual spells, since Illusion is one of the smallest schools. There are several spell levels with no Illusion spells at all in the PHB, and several of the spells that are present, such as blur or hypnotic pattern, only have use in combat. (Fascinating a creature for a single minute ain't non-combat utility.)</blockquote>

Verification