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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 5622595" data-attributes="member: 2067">4e is pretty intimately tied to the encounter as the source of "fun" in the game.And specifically it is tied to the combat encounter as the source of "fun" in the game. Think of it this way:What your character can do in the game is mostly defined by class.Class is mostly defined by powers.Powers are mostly defined by Attack Powers (for offensive use in combat) and Utility Powers (for defensive use in combat). What opposes your character is mostly defined by monsters.Monsters are also mostly defined by combat powers.What you can do is mostly defined by combat at the level of the character you create and the challenges you face.This is not exclusive, of course. It's not ONLY combat. You have a few utility noncombat powers. You have rituals. You have skill challenges. You can do stuff other than just combat.But rituals are rather poorly designed GP-sink patches, by and large. And skill challenges lack significant variety or strategy. And utility powers are a choice between combat effectiveness and noncombat flavor, and since most of your threats are combat threats since most of your threats are monsters, you're encouraged to pick combat powers. A determined DM and an amenable group don't HAVE to be combat focused, and not every group wants rules for roleplaying, but the design of the game undoubtedly is focused on combat (even if it doesn't exclude other things)Not that this has changed dramatically in 40 years, of course. D&D was the outgrowth of wargames. Combat is vitally important to every edition.But 4e's siloing project went slightly askew when it decided to kind of phone in the rules design for anything that wasn't minis combat. It's smart to make it so a character doesn't have to choose between being effective in combat and with a good flavor. This is Wise. It's not smart to make most everything that's not combat bland or ill-considered. That's rough.I think we can do better, and I think it begins with considering combat as a part of a whole, rather than as a goal in and of itself. Going "<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/274027-where-do-you-see-want-5-0-go.html#post5132693" target="_blank">back to the dungeon</a>". Personally, I think this begins with expanding the use of long term resources. The idea that any sort of rest makes your enemies stronger is a good one for focusing beyond the encounter, into the context in which the encounter is situated in. Add a few more things to loose aside from healing surges, and make even victory cost something, and we're on our way.BUT, what that means, in part, is developing simpler rules for combat, and more complex rules for exploration, discovery, and interaction. And the current class structure, with Attack powers and Utility powers and little else, gives you little to use there. And the current threat structure, with monsters and encounters and little else, doesn't give you much, either. But that's for the adventure I'm working on... <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/angel.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":angel:" title="Angel    :angel:" data-shortname=":angel:" /></blockquote>

Verification