Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 6029152" data-attributes="member: 6668292">We had a poll about that on this site. The majority voted against it being "about combat". Saying it's undeniable doesn't make it true; the majority of people who voted on this site, in fact, deny it (and as this is where the discussion is taking place, it seems fair to use).And as far as editions go, 2e, 3e, and 4e all tried to branch out. Let's keep that up. Each edition evolves the scope or nature of the game, or tries to. So, why change what D&D is "about"? It's how it usually works.Hussar has explicitly stated as much, and in one post above yours. He also held that position when the poll was posted, and you even disagreed with him in that thread, if I recall.I do, too. This doesn't mean that forcing people to consistently use combat (or be proficient) is mandatory. People routinely use other abilities to resolve situations; if you can make a purely combat-oriented character (as past editions have done), why not a purely non-combat character? D&D definitely allows non-combat solutions in every edition.This isn't what I'm talking about. I'm saying that forced proficiency (in any field) isn't desirable. You can bring your point here up again, but as it's not what I'm discussing, I'll leave out further replies to it.No need to lie about them. Make it very clear that taking a feat that's not a combat feat makes you worse at combat, and how it will affect your character, your party, and the play style of the game. If people still decide to go with it, then they'll be doing so while informed of what that choice entails. (They should also make it clear what overspecializing leads to, regular specialization, going for a "jack of all trades" feel, etc.)And then, you know, expand those fields some more. In my RPG, there's really only one completely combat-based skill (Martial Prowess), and it takes up one page. The Skill chapter is 54 pages long (longest chapter in the book), and Combat is 34 pages (which includes 5 pages on mass combat and 12 on martial maneuvers). Then there's another 21 pages later on about handling weather, fire, poisons, drinking, and so on. Then another 17 pages in Chapter 1 for a background generator, status, calling in favors, fame, income, gaining possessions, reputations, etc. Then another 9 pages on crafting items not covered in the book, pricing them, determining DCs, adding features, etc. That's essentially 101 pages vs 34 pages when it comes to combat vs. non-combat (not getting into listed equipment, magic, traits, special abilities, and the like). When it comes to feats, out of the 11 categories of feats, 6 are combat-based, and 5 aren't (though some are useful in combat, and some combat feats are useful out of combat); that chapter is 24 pages long, so with an uneven split of 8 non-combat and 16 combat, the total is still looking like it's 109 non-combat to 50 combat (well, 107 to 52 if you move the Martial Prowess and Tactics skills over).I'm not saying that non-combat needs to dominate the game, or be anywhere near as long as my stuff, but we can definitely expand upon it in 5e. There's a lot of room to grow.As promised: <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-horizons-upcoming-edition-d-d/329776-feats-dont-fail-me-now-feat-design-5e.html" target="_blank">http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-horizons-upcoming-edition-d-d/329776-feats-dont-fail-me-now-feat-design-5e.html</a>. Go ahead and look up the back and forth that I had in this thread to get a feel of my feelings on it (the 3/3/3 default and specialization, optional opt-out of 3/3/3, potential combat and non-combat siloing, etc.).The option to be bad at combat is bad because...?</blockquote>

Verification