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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DreamChaser" data-source="post: 3908452" data-attributes="member: 1190">It was, I suppose, exactly that. In response to the "how can I know?"Obviously, I can't. I have only my experiences and opinions (like everyone here). My experience playing in 1e (starting at 10 years old), 2e, 2e (S&P), 3.0, and 3.5 and noting that the things that people at the local hobby shop always seemed to rave about seemed to be my least favorite parts of the game. *shrug*I will freely admit that my above post is purely my views, my speculation, and my annoyance.The rules have always been about combat. I will admit that it has been some time since I looked through a 1e PHB or DMG, but the portion of said books that related to role play were very slim. Fighters had no out of combat role, nor did druids, or monks (unless you count the limit to the high number of those classes. They included the interesting way of challenging for a limited position...by combat).Not to say that there have been zero social encounter spells and abilities, but they have always been fewer and farther between than the combat portion. Why? I would guess that it is because just like when kids play (or used to play) cops and robbers - the conversation during the arrest didn't cause fights...who shot who caused fights. The rules are created for that. The role play is, and always has been, created by the players - even when it is supported by the rules.In terms of sweet fey being armed to the teeth: nymphs killed with a glance until 3e (now they merely blind). If a creature is all sweetness and light with no real way to threaten the party except by blackmailing them, there is no need for it to be written in the Monster Manual. All we would need to say is "use statistics for a female elf with DR 5/cold iron and a Bluff and Diplomacy bonus of +38"Regarding party role, so far I have seen this as a descriptive rather than prescriptive designation. If you had asked me to choose the two classes in 3e that best fit the description of a front line fighter whose main job is dishing and taking damage, I would have said paladin and fighter. Ditto strategic damage for rogue and buffer for cleric. Ranger as a striker seems to have people bent out of shape (I wonder if this is ACTUALLY the issue...is it the final death of Aragon the ranger? *smile*) but then I don't think that the 3e ranger would fit that. The 4e ranger sounds like it will.Again, not a problem in my book.And to clarify, I am not just saying "Go play GURPS." I love D&D and I like others to like to too. I'm saying, if you don't like the direction of 4e once 4e is out, cool. Keep playing 3e. If you "mostly" like it, change it. But I don't understand the surprise being caused by "role rigidity" in a game that has always had rigid roles.DC</blockquote>

Verification