Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ruleslawyer" data-source="post: 3979971" data-attributes="member: 1757">Not necessarily. It may simply mean that baseline combat power for all classes is reasonable. We already know that skills are more evened out across the board in 4e, which makes it even *possible* for a fighter-type to be good at Diplomacy; compare with the 3e skills system, in which being good at Diplomacy would entail multiclassing and some serious skill expenditures, something that would be a wrench for a close-to-vanilla fighter. My guess is that it's not as easy as that, but easier for a character to develop a non-combat role without sacrificing too much in the way of combat power. To riff on Mearls's analogy, I think of measuring the difference between Lord Harran and Kilmore in terms of dekameters rather than kilometers.Note also that this sort of thing is already present in the game in terms of "extra" core class design; the designers have done a lot over the evolution of the game to enable, say, a paladin to develop some stealth ability without sacrificing too much in the way of core abilities (Shadowbane __ PrC), or a fighter to develop magical ability without sacrificing too much in combat power (Eldritch Knight). It's just a question of taking that philosophy further into the realm of class function vis-a-vis combat/non-combat ability.</blockquote>