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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 5168217" data-attributes="member: 2067">Talking in the abstract, I think it's possible to have both "combat encounter roles," as well as other kinds of roles (such as "exploration roles" or "social roles") depending on the challenges encountered over the course of the dungeon or adventure. Combat encounters are, after all, part of the overall dungeon, each one draining some long-term resources, even in 4e (healing surges). They are self-contained scenes within the ongoing dungeon, and they have a beginning, and end in a different place. From that ending (and the costs involved in ending it), the party decides where to go. If the ending cost the wizard most of his spells, or the fighter most of his hp, or the rogue most of his chutzpah (or whatever long-term resource is used), they might decide to rest. Or if only one of those was consumed, they might choose a different option (so the wizard's spells are gone, so we avoid the elderitch-looking corridor, and go down this trapped corridor, since the Rogue still has most of her resources). Encounters are still an integral part of dungeons, but more attention should, I think, be paid to how they affect each other as a whole over the course of the entire adventure, than just the narrow verdict of "Win this fight or die."There are some (dailies, healing surges, milestones). I didn't say 4e completely lacked them. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> I don't think they're nearly as common, as interesting, or as well-thought-out as they could be. There's a continuum here, it's not a binary do they/don't they thing. I think it's analogous to 4e's work on noncombat encounters: not nearly as interesting, common, or as well-thought-out as they could be. Admittedly, individual DM's can always compensate for the failings of any given system, and not all groups even see these things as failings. What I'm arguing is more a social science position than a mathematical science position. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> I acknowledge exceptions, but those exceptions do not necessarily invalidate the conclusion. I do think the "what about wizards?!" comments are too literal. The spirit of your position, if I'm not mischaraterizing it, was that characters in earlier editions were only slightly above average, just beginning to be different and heroic, but still on the same continuum as mere mortals, yes?I still think that 4e characters aren't inherently any different from that.I think the big distinction is that low-level 4e characters are more survivable, not that they're more heroic. They have more room for failure than a wizard with 3 hp did. I don't thinks this makes them any more inherently heroic, though I do think it makes them less likely to die a horrible early death. Which some would say is a bad thing, though I'd disagree.</blockquote>

Verification