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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kzach" data-source="post: 5033379" data-attributes="member: 56189">Didn't we just have this discussion?Eh, I'll throw in my copper regardless.The biggest problem with not siloing is that characters lose effectiveness in combat. Out of combat effectiveness is highly subjective. I tend to just roleplay through any out of combat conflicts. In fact, as a DM who was weaned on the era of "roleplaying is everything", I've had a lot of difficulty adapting to skills-based non-combat scenarios, both as a DM and as a player.I still find skill challenges clunky and cumbersome and blocks to roleplaying.So I always build a character for combat. I never choose non-combat abilities because I feel that just weakens the character unnecessarily. Why do that when I can just roleplay through any non-combat scenario?And let's face it, it's a combat centric game. People who want more from D&D are playing the wrong game. But if you really want to have challenging and interesting and dynamic non-combat encounters that don't 100% rely on roleplaying, then you really have to silo.Personally, I get annoyed at people who don't optimise their characters for combat. It means everyone in the group has to make up for their lack. To me it's part and parcel with team-work. If someone is always going off on their own and never being a team player, then I feel they're being selfish. The same goes for making ineffective characters.So for me, I would welcome a fully siloed system with strictly combat and non-combat options and never the twain shall meet. Then I wouldn't have to put up with people who think taking +2 in Diplomacy over a +5 damage bonus is 'roleplaying'.</blockquote>

Verification