NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TwinBahamut" data-source="post: 4711312" data-attributes="member: 32536">Yes, various forms of non-combat challenges have similar axes (though I would not agree that they are the same by any stretch of the imagination). Non-combat itself does not. As a whole, "non-combat" encompasses far too many different things that work under entirely different rules to really be comparable to combat. Arguably, you need directly competitive challenges, rather than individual vs. environment challlenges, in order to even come close...Besides, your "one side is GOAL and the other side is FAIL" statement really has nothing to do with what I just said, so I wonder if we are having some kind of bizarre miscommunication here. Success and failure have nothing to do with the offense vs. defense and direct vs. indirect axes, which are based entirely on complimentary ways in which one tries to achieve success and avoid failure. A conflict that has success and failure does not necessarily have either axis (I will use disarming a bomb as a an example of a challenge that has neither).If you abstract it to that level it doesn't make any conceptual sense anymore, and you still don't quite fulfill the main purpose of roles. If there is no real difference between someone who navigates open wilderness and a guy who disarms traps in ancient ruins, then you have simply failed to make your system model the kinds of stories that people typically want to play in an RPG.Besides, my comparison is not saying that you can't be a striker against minion. It is much more comparable to saying that, a class that can only deal large amount of damage to undead and a class that can only deal a large amount of damage to humanoids are not interchangeable in a party, and thus can't be said to fulfill the same role of a "striker".You are misinterpreting the level of similarity.I am not saying that a guy who can navigate a hedge maze can't navigate a stone maze. I am saying that a guy can't use his skills at navigating underground labyrinths to navigate the open ocean. There is a huge difference in skill-set between the two.Seriously, your argument here has nothing to do with what I was saying. Or are you saying that the difference between having the skills to manage a merchant caravan and having the skills to be a master blacksmith are only as minor as the differences between having the ability to swing a sword at oozes and having the ability to swing a sword at a person? Yes, you can easily entirely replace the combat system with skill checks and challenges. That does not mean the inverse is true in the slightest. This argument is a total logical failure.Because dragonslaying is subset of general fighting ability, not a totally alternate skill set.Because healing people and healing animals are both subsets of the healing skill set, not totally alternate skill sets.Why shouldn't he be?No, D&D doesn't take a more abstract view. It focuses entirely on a fairly limited range, abilities related to combat, and abstracts everything else. Within that range, it is amazingly detailed and specific. The minor abstractions made for that purpose don't mandate the kind of massive abstractions that you are advocating.</blockquote>

Verification