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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Darwinism" data-source="post: 5733321" data-attributes="member: 6669722">...no? It's where your powers come from. Powers are how you overcome combat challenges, and there are more than a few powers that are not combat focused. Granted, the system is flawed in that you will usually have a choice between combat effectiveness or the ability to create a bridge of roots, but you're pretty wrong here.So what you're saying is that a Wizard and Swordmage both are typecast to act... in wildly different ways because they're Arcane? Or the Runepriest and Avenger? I don't get what you're saying; the power source is where your powers come from, not how you act.Hahahah yes tell us the many out-of-combat choices for non-casters pre-4E. Ooh! Bonus skills for rogues! Just like 4E. Woops. The biggest difference is that spells were recognized to be far, far too powerful. So there are less trivialize-encounter buttons available for certain classes. That may shrink out of combat choices but it does so to make everyone capable of contributing roughly the same amount in and out of combat, ideally. D&D is a game whose mechanics are largely focused on combat. Has been for a long, long time. If the main focus of the game, ie small-unit skirmishes, is imbalanced that is a huge issue and not a benefit. Also you're either ignorant or purposefully lying again, and my bet's on purposefully lying because you've already mentioned that you're aware of Rituals and presumably Martial Practices, which are specifically out-of-combat.I guess it's really hilarious that you rag on 4E for cutting out spells and PFFF only having SKILLS for out-of-combat stuff when 3E is the exact same if you didn't have the foresight to be a system masteried caster.</blockquote>

Verification