NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5819955" data-attributes="member: 42582">To date, D&D encounter design has taken it for granted that in combat everyone will take part. The technique it has used to achieve this is (i) to have all the PCs at more-or-less the same place on the map, and (ii) to have the monsters threatening everyone at that place on the map.It would be nice to see techniques a bit more sophisticated than that, that go beyond "Oh, and there's a complexity 1 skill challenge hazard that the rogue need to deal with."To date, D&D social encounter design has given no thought at all to how all the PCs should be incorporated, and how the GM should adjudicate that. If your dragon example is to generalise across all 3 pillars - and I think that it should - then the designers need to think about action resolution mechanics, and advice to GMs on designing and adjudicating encounters at least as hard as they are thinking about PC build options.Yes (and couldn't XP you, sorry). Again, this goes to the designers giving GM's decent guidelines on how to set up and adjudicate situations in the social and exploration pillars, so as to make PCs useful without requiring them to break type.Another excellent point.A related question: in 4e, to play a socially competent fighter you really have to build a warlord. Do you think this is objectionable in the same way as your cleric example, or should we just think of the warlord as the socially competent subclass of fighter?</blockquote>

Verification