Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mallus" data-source="post: 4941511" data-attributes="member: 3887">From a certain perspective, it's unavoidable. But is the kind of homogeneity found in 4e really so different from the kind found in the other editions of D&D?Sure, in 4e every wizard gets better at Athletics as they level.But in, for instance, 1e, every wizard gets better at stabbing people (and taking a knife wound) as they level. In fact, every class gets better at fighting as time goes by, both in terms of hitting and taking a hit. Why does an ever-increasing talent for skills like swimming and tumbling in 4e lead to a sense of homogeneity, but an ever-increasing talent for beating the sh*t out of things in 1e does not?To my mind, both design choices reflect a recognition that adventures, regardless of archetype, need a certain basic level of competence in common adventure-story activities (the most common being 'surviving a fight'). (I suppose the answer is simply 'because 4e feels overly homogeneous to me and 1e doesn't", and that's fine. I realize these are ultimately issues of taste. But I think my point stands. From a certain perspective, D&D has always featured characters with ever-increasing abilities in the "adventuring core competencies".)</blockquote>