Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 4551621" data-attributes="member: 18280">OK, then, let's look at other editions.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />In any given edition, various character classes have level-based class abilities that are not particularly useful inside combat, but may be particularly useful outside of combat.  We know that it was a design goal of 4e to "fix" this "problem" because we were told that it was.I am thinking that, if I am given abilities that are specifically useful in non-combat situations, I am intended to engage in non-combat situations at least an amount of time roughly proportionate to the non-combat abilities I am specifically given.Conversely, if you see this as a problem that needs fixing, it is because the game is intentionally more focused on combat.And, given the sheer amount of time combat takes in 3e and 4e, it is understandable that WotC would want to make characters feel more useful during combat.  If you have two non-combat encounters, and one combat encounter, but the combat encounter eats away 90% of the play time, having a non-combat focus -- or even strong non-combat abilities -- can be a problem.IMHO, the solution should be to make combats run faster, and hence eat up less table time per combat.  As this was a stated design goal, I suspect that WotC agrees.  Their solution simply didn't solve the problem.I also note that the more codified an activity is, the easier it is to balance it in terms of game design.  Combat situations in every edition are far more codified than non-combat situations.  Therefore, it is easier to balance combat.  If you want a more balanced game, you should focus on combat.  A more balanced game was also one of the stated design goals, and one that I think is undeniable achieved by 4e.Finally, the 4e designers intentionally focused on what they believe is "fun".  Clearly, Craft skills (for example) were not "fun".  Nor were a whole host of non-combat spells.I think it is more than justifiable to say that 4e is more combat-focused than previous editions.  YMMV.Schrödinger's Wounding doesn't exist if you choose not to have game terms have direct meaning in the narration (i.e., choose not to narrate damage or healing in this particular case).  But that seems rather....lame.....to me.Schrödinger's Wounding isn't a problem in episodic play, where the DM can narrate the players into extended rests to recover from damage that doesn't actually track to hit point loss.The minute you get into the sandbox, though, Schrödinger's Wounding is there glaring at you.  RC</blockquote>

Verification