Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ThirdWizard" data-source="post: 6177778" data-attributes="member: 12037">Let me bring this back to the topic at hand, because I'm talking about genre modifications more than anything.I like options for non-combat pillars, such as social interaction and exploration. What I don't like is the idea that there would be options for those pillars that would require giving up the ability to participate in what I consider an incredibly important aspect of D&amp;D, which is combat. That's the designer suddenly saying that combat ability is just as important in D&amp;D as whatever it is you're getting. Okay for the sake of some concreteness, let's say I could give up Sneak Attack for the ability to enter a new &quot;social combat&quot; system they devised. So, now I'm faced with a choice. Do I give up my combat effectiveness to play with this cool module they released? Are they telling me that D&amp;D is just about social combat as it is about physical combat? What is the designers' vision for D&amp;D?Do you see how that's a bad thing? It's taking something neat and interesting to add to the game, and locking it behind a genre change. If a rogue in my game wanted to take this, what do I do? I don't want the rogue's player to sit out of physical combat. I don't want the other players to sit out of the rogue's social combat scenes. Sure, I can house rule it. But, suddenly the game as it exists is no longer quite the same. Expectations might be altered. I shouldn't have to choose what's more important. Pillars should be kept separate. Everyone should be able to fight with equivalent power, because D&amp;D is a game about killing things and taking their stuff!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ThirdWizard, post: 6177778, member: 12037"] Let me bring this back to the topic at hand, because I'm talking about genre modifications more than anything. I like options for non-combat pillars, such as social interaction and exploration. What I don't like is the idea that there would be options for those pillars that would require giving up the ability to participate in what I consider an incredibly important aspect of D&D, which is combat. That's the designer suddenly saying that combat ability is just as important in D&D as whatever it is you're getting. Okay for the sake of some concreteness, let's say I could give up Sneak Attack for the ability to enter a new "social combat" system they devised. So, now I'm faced with a choice. Do I give up my combat effectiveness to play with this cool module they released? Are they telling me that D&D is just about social combat as it is about physical combat? What is the designers' vision for D&D? Do you see how that's a bad thing? It's taking something neat and interesting to add to the game, and locking it behind a genre change. If a rogue in my game wanted to take this, what do I do? I don't want the rogue's player to sit out of physical combat. I don't want the other players to sit out of the rogue's social combat scenes. Sure, I can house rule it. But, suddenly the game as it exists is no longer quite the same. Expectations might be altered. I shouldn't have to choose what's more important. Pillars should be kept separate. Everyone should be able to fight with equivalent power, because D&D is a game about killing things and taking their stuff! [/QUOTE]

Verification