Ok, since we're talking Complete Warrior, name the fighter kit that isn't based around combat.
So then, would you say the presentation can lead to people not being able to see the forest for the trees?
The American buffalo population has gone extinct due to people hunting it for food. Since it's extinction less people have been eating buffalo.Ok, since we're talking Complete Warrior, name the fighter kit that isn't based around combat.
By the same token, how are many older edition spells any different? How many times have you seen fireball used outside of combat, despite that being the purpose of the fireball spell? How many spells have far, far more information on what they do in a fight, only to be used to some way different, possible bizarre, end?
Players who think outside the box will think outside the box; those that won't, won't. I've seen - and I'd bet we've all seen - plenty of pre-4e wizards who never used a spell in a creative manner. And I've seen 4e wizards that do. The edition doesn't change that.
The ranger even considers it a good way to return nature to its natural state.![]()
Player: I cast Magic Mithle (missile)
DM: On what?
Player: I am attacking.
DM: What are you attacking?
Player: I attack the darkness.
You know where that joke comes from? What people tried to do with magic missile outside of direct damage to an opponent in battle. Using it to move levers across chasms or unlock a jail cell, etc.
Magic missile is pretty much the quintessential combat only spell, but MANY arguments were had on people trying to use it another way.
As to your fireball itself...MANY times has I seen it used outside of combat. My players really love to search every room of a structure. If that structure is old an unoccupied and found along the way, they would have no qualms about fireballing it out of existence so they didnt have to search it again in the future. The ranger even considers it a good way to return nature to its natural state.![]()
The American buffalo population has gone extinct due to people hunting it for food. Since it's extinction less people have been eating buffalo.
Is that good enough to join in the game a logical fallacy?
Absolutely.Players who think outside the box will think outside the box; those that won't, won't.
Except the spells give more than just combat use right there. The fact you only see and think combat is the difference in what is presetnted and what is there. The fact 4th edition powers SCREAMS combat is the difference I am talking about. It would make you see it more as jsut for combat, when you see all spells as combat only anyway.Yes, that's my point. Many spells in previous editions were very much designed for combat, but used outside of it. I see no reason why 4e is excluded from this.
Absolutely.
The gray area is those many players who would think outside the box if they were encouraged to or even realized they were allowed to. And that comes down to how the game is presented. If the written books are presented as guidelines (both for players and DMs) you'll get a lot more out-of-box thinking overall than if the books are presented as hard-and-fast rules.
Lan-"the challenge is to successfully use Tenser's Floating Disc as an attack"-efan
Ok, since we're talking Complete Warrior, name the fighter kit that isn't based around combat.
Ok, since we're talking Complete Warrior, name the fighter kit that isn't based around combat.