There should be a name for this fallacy, in which one reasons that the more combat options a game has the less roleplaying options it must have as a result. Its similar to the "D&D Fallacy," (which I just named) where people apply D&D character balance rules to real world people: "He's strong, so he must not be agile." "She's attractive, so she's not smart." Just as not all real life people are created from a limited point buy that forces them to skimp on statistics in one category to excel in another, real life gaming systems do not have a finite amount of positive traits which must trade off against one another.